top of page
Search

The Strategic Use of Language in the Workplace

Robert Jackall was a sociologist who set out to study how our societal structure (bureaucracy) impacted what he called the "moral consciousness" of managers in organizations. In his book "Moral Mazes", he accounts his early 1980s study into organizational managers, their relationship to bureaucracy, and the unspoken rules of the workplace they align to in their roles.


In chapter 7, Jackall talks about the development of what he calls euphemistic language (specifically among managers) whose purpose is "to communicate certain meaning within specific context with the understanding that, should the context change, then a new more "appropriate" meaning can be attached to the language already used." The vague, corporate double-speak we're all used to is a planned and designed feature of the most workplaces- designed to allow the speaker to evade any responsibility and accountability for anything they communicate.


We see this not only at work, but within most of our social structures (politics, education, etc.) because bureaucracy is a core part of our societal structure as a whole, and the strategic use of language is a core part of that structure, which is what Jackall's work helped to make visible.

Why talk about this? As with all things we talk about here, building your awareness around what's really happening will empower you to be able to navigate organizations with less confusion and with the confidence to set healthy boundaries and make choices aligned to your values.


That being said- what are some examples of this strategic language? Let's explore a few.


Strategic Language in Organizations

A common workplace stressor is the exhaustion and confusion many of us experience simply trying to make sense of what's happening around us at work. Everything can feel so nebulous- we feel confused, we feel tired, we feel misused- but we can't quite put our fingers on why. Especially in toxic workplaces, there is always a constant feeling of dread, of conflict, ambiguity, and....fakeness.


Meaning changes depending on who is involved, projects seem not to have any real purpose, and communication is used to enforce social norms over communicating information to move the organization forward.


Instead of focusing on shared goals, alignment, and organizational growth (as they say), many organizations are focused instead on:


  • keeping you in survival mode, to make you easier to manage

  • making you tolerant of ambiguity, so that these language tactics feel normal and are tolerated easily (unquestioningly)

  • cheapening morality to make it easier for you to choose less than moral decisions- rather than forcing it onto you (escaping accountability..."You chose to...")

  • activities aligned to maintaining social order, rather than those aligned with organizational goals and purpose


The whole "meeting that could have been an email" trope is a great example. The meeting most definitely could have been an email, but gathering people together provides an opportunity to reinforce power, positions, to influence (manipulate) people into alignment, and communicate social order- which is the underlying, main reason meetings exist (especially the higher up the chain you go...). Communicating information becomes secondary, if even important at all.


In a typical organization, words aren't always used to convey their common meaning. For example, you may hear a leader talk about teamwork and collaboration, and it sounds great ("Thank you all for your work on this project! Everything YOU did to contribute to this has made this a success...") ...but really their goal is to diffuse responsibility so that accountability is vague: (if this goes wrong, I can't accept full blame....). We accept it of course at face value because a) many people are looking for that validation, so they don't question it and b) we interpret the words used to mean what we all know they should mean. Corporate speak (double-speak, jargon, etc.) uses words we know, but with hidden double meaning.


This is why, in some cases, leaders will not acknowledge or feel like they've been dishonest- in their mind they haven't been; you just didn't know the hidden meaning behind their words. They will say things that appeal to your moral sense, without those things meaning the same things morally as you would interpret. This is how, in their minds, they release their conscience and accountability- it's not their fault you don't know what they really mean.


Euphemistic language vs Strategic Language: Is It All the Same?

Not exactly. Here are a few common examples of euphemistic language:


  • Using the word "alignment" to actually mean "compliance"

  • "Head count reduction" or "right-sizing" to mean layoffs

  • "Managing optics" or "influencing" for manipulation and deception

  • "Process-driven outcomes" instead of naming accountable parties


Do you see the pattern? There isn't a person or group who is named as responsible for these things- the wording is meant to bypass our moral compass, while also creating ambiguity around accountability. The focus of euphemistic language is accountability avoidance.


Due to this misuse of language, morality has been reframed as compliance-based and alignment to norms that protect the organization while undermining actual morality. We think things are simply miscommunications or unfortunate happenstance, but really its planned confusion and control. This is why direct communication is frowned upon- it creates too much exposure- and too much accountability. This is all framed as politeness, or what you "have to do" to be savvy and socially elite- but in reality, this isn't the case.


Strategic language is the vehicle used to manage perceptions- make things look like they are the things we euphemistically express, even though in reality they are not. It's more about both control and accountability avoidance. It relies on ambiguity, social inference, unspoken rules and implication versus directness, clarity, and transparency to communicate. Instead of describing reality, it's used to create it.

"Organizations are set up for the benefit of those who control it."- Robert Jackall

So, What Can You Do?

When coaching or teaching, I never focus on trying to change other people -the goal of awareness isn't to out-strategize or control others back. The goal is to understand ourselves in relation to the people and systems that operate around us. Trying to out-manipulate or out- maneuver within unchanging systems will only lead to more exhaustion and emotional distress. The more you objectively see and understand these hidden systems, the better, more powerful position you're in to influence real change.


Learning to look at communication (and the real function of it) in the workplace differently will help you to not absorb the confusion, stay grounded, and set boundaries (when needed). Knowing is always half the battle.


If you are a manager in corporate, or aspire to leadership, or just want to know more about the true nature of workplaces, the book Moral Mazes is a must read (here's the link).

In the next article, we'll talk about why operating in these types of environments can be tough, and we'll talk through a few strategies that will help keep you grounded in performative and distorted workplaces.

Help The Workplace Unfiltered reach more people! If you found this article useful, please comment, like and share/repost. If you are interested in workplace wellness coaching and would like to learn more, you can:



 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page