But since that time, other alert systems have become more commonplace.  For example, we have a general sense of the difference between a Category 4 and a Category 5 hurricane as a result of Katrina. In the most serious child abduction cases, we know that an Amber Alert may be issued and what steps we should take. And who can forget the high-pitched squelch that accompanies the newly named “Emergency Alert System” (formerly the Emergency Broadcast System) on radio and television stations.

In the past few weeks alone, many have become intimately aware of the World Health Organization (WHO) and their six phased model for influenza pandemics.  As I’m writing this post, many anticipate that swine flu will be elevated to Level 6 (“Global pandemic”) later today.  

So I pose this simple question – do we need a corporate alert system? Should both public and private companies have a fiduciary and/or moral obligation to their employees, shareholders, investors, partners and suppliers to make them aware of an “alert” status that may impact sustainability? If you’re a public company, many believe that this alert system is already in place, but could one argue that most disclosures occur post-tragedy/failure? 

In a recent Harvard Business blog post, Nick Morgan assesses whether corporate transparency is always a good thing. His conclusion?

“The lessons seem to be clear: transparency is a good thing. Those who follow the rule get a chance to survive, even possibly thrive. Those who do not, suffer, and perhaps die.”

We due respect to Jack Nicholson, perhaps many corporations fear that “you can’t handle the truth.” To whit, WHO Chief Margaret Chan stated in her recent interview with Spanish paper El Pais: 

“Level 6 does not mean, in any way, that we are facing the end of the world. It is important to make this clear because (otherwise) when we announce level 6 it will cause an unnecessary panic.”

Tell me what you think. Do alert systems work? Would you like to see one for corporations? Share your thoughts – don’t panic! – and let’s keep the conversation going.

Case Zero – How It All Began

In his 2008 HR Executive article, columnist Bill Kutik unleashed his inner Indiana Jones to discover anthropological evidence supporting the first documented case of this seemingly benign term. After some field work, Bill uncovered a 1998 piece of collateral authored by the software firm Softscape. Said Kutik about the find:

“The graphic is a delightful historical artifact, an antique really by computer industry standards.”

Oh 1998, you quiet breeder of verbal misanthropes. In so many ways those were much simpler times, as little did we know what had been unleashed in that innocuous one-page document.

Eleven Years Later – A Global Pandemic

Although modern technology still lacks the tools to measure the pervasiveness of this crisis, we do know a few things for certain:

• A Google search results in 6.25M links referencing this disease.
• Many who employ the term – let’s call them “term-ites” – are consciously and overtly promoting adoption, thus perpetuating the spread. 
• Small, medium and large organizations in virtually every industry and geography have embraced the phrase.
• It supports billions of dollars in revenue and may be difficult to stop.
• Most don’t realize that we even have a problem.

The Frightening Precedent

HR in particular is highly susceptible to the spread of language flu. A few examples include:

• “Personnel” – According to one account, it began in the late 1800s and continued into the late 1970s/early 1980s. Fortunately, a series of “human resources” injections did eventually stem the tide. Yet much to our dismay, in some organizations “personnel departments” still exist without an appropriate quarantine.
• “A Seat at the Table” – For at least twenty years, HR has parroted this phase and clamored for this elusive chair. The saddest cases involve the patient’s inability to appropriately secure the seat or locate the table. The only known cure involves HR embracing their business leadership position without the need for absurd monikers.

Why It’s So Scary

Many of you may be asking yourself:

“So what’s the big deal about talent management?”

Other than your obvious need for immediate medical attention, let me attempt to explain:

• Employees Are Not “Talent” – For most of us, work isn’t a strip club, so identifying our workers as “the talent” is a bit of a non-starter. And like it or not, many of our organization’s positions neither require a significant amount of talent nor reward the application of said talent. 
• The Invention of Language – As a society, we typically adopt new terms when we believe that the existing body of knowledge fails to adequately carry meaning. So why have we distinguished ”talent management” from “human resources”? Did HR fail to appropriately address comp, performance, learning, etc.? Couldn’t you argue that everything HR does is for the purpose of securing, managing, measuring, rewarding and sustaining so-called “talent”? 
• Vendor Differentiation – Believe what I’m about to tell you as the gospel… The holy grail of vendor marketing is the creation and invention of a new business category or phrase. Perhaps more important is that only your firm supports the core features and capabilities of this new term. Why did Softscape invent “talent management”? Because it gave them the opportunity to define what it is and thereby force other vendors to be compared against that definition. Keep this in the back of your mind when you read about HR 2.0 (or some fool’s blog post about HR 3.0).

The Race For The Cure

I’m not going to lie to you – knowing that this disease has progressed for this long creates quite a challenge. However, with the right level of education, focus, support and treatment, I believe we can rally together and survive this language pandemic.

Do you think you have the cure? If so, please be sure to post your comments and thoughts, and let’s keep the conversation going.