From "They" to "We": What Clarkson's Farm Tells Us About Organisational Culture

When people say 'they' — what are they really saying?

"They've decided."

"They never listen."

"They don’t understand what it’s like for us."

In almost every organisation I’ve worked with - across sectors and industries - I’ve heard phrases like these. Harmless on the surface, they reveal something deeper when you look closely.

When staff refer to senior leaders as they, it’s more than a casual word choice. It’s a cultural clue. A sign of distance. A lack of connection. Sometimes, even a lack of trust.

And it reminds me of something I once heard about farming - and more recently, saw again in the latest series of Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon Prime.

Why Farmers Don’t Name Their Animals

Many farmers choose not to name their livestock. The reasoning is simple: if you name something, you form an emotional connection with it. Naming turns a pig into Percy, a cow into Daisy. And once it has a name, it’s no longer just stock - it’s someone. You care. And it becomes harder to send them to slaughter.

There’s a scene in Clarkson’s Farm where Jeremy names the runt of a litter of pigs "Richard Ham". It’s funny, of course. But it’s also very human. That one act of naming alters how he feels about it. The connection grows. The consequence becomes personal.

In organisations, the reverse happens all the time.

We avoid naming. We turn people into job titles. We turn leaders into “they.” And just like the unnamed livestock, that language allows emotional distance to grow.

The Cost of "They"

When people say “they” instead of naming individuals or saying “we,” it:

• Signals a disconnect between decision-makers and the wider team

• Creates space for mistrust, assumption, and blame

• Makes the organisation feel hierarchical, faceless, and transactional

And here’s the irony: often the people being referred to as “they” would be horrified to hear it. Most leaders don’t want to be distant, unknowable figures. But when they aren’t visible, known, or emotionally connected to their teams, that’s exactly how they’re experienced.

The Power of Naming

Personification - or anthropomorphism - is the act of giving human traits to something non-human or abstract. In teams, naming people in leadership makes them human again. It makes them relatable. It opens up empathy and dialogue.

The moment a team starts referring to Ali in Finance or Michelle from the Exec Team instead of “them,” something shifts. Now it’s personal. Now it’s relational. Now there’s a chance for trust to grow.

Building a "We" Culture

The most connected organisations I’ve worked with don’t just talk about unity - they practice it. They:

• Make leaders visible and accessible

• Encourage cross-level dialogue

• Share decisions with the people they affect

• Refer to one another by name, not title

This doesn’t mean blurring roles or avoiding accountability. It means humanising leadership.

A Few Questions Worth Asking

• Do people in your organisation refer to senior leaders as “they” or by name?

• What does that tell you about how connected your culture really is?

• If you’re a senior leader - what’s one thing you could do this week to be more visible, known, or trusted?

Final Thought

Language reveals culture. And every time someone says “they,” it tells you where connection is missing.

The goal isn’t to ban the word - it’s to create an environment where people naturally say we instead.

That’s when leadership becomes more than positional. That’s when culture comes to life.