I would like to add one more point: Unfortunately, in the times we live in, it is becoming increasingly acceptable to use derogatory and divisive language. This makes it all the more important for organizations to be aware of their own language and to use it carefully.
I really enjoyed reading your post. It brought clarity and awareness to something that has bothered me for a long time: how the sloppiness of language use leads to great chasms in people's shared understanding. It also reminds me of a time in my life, whilst taking part in an intensive personal development training where we came up with the word 'meaningfying' for the act of making meaning. Later I came across Karl Weick's sensemaking - but somehow it doesn't have quite the same sense of grappling with deeper meaning for me.
"Meaningfying" - that's quite a creating. It's clearly edgier than the rather depreciated "sensemaking", but maybe not as sticky as it should be. But its time may yet come!
Made me think about organizations, Dawkins, Minsky, and a lot of other stuff.
Also - super quotable! "People are just not part of organizations." I like that.
As you know, I'm no organizational theorist. :) But after pondering your post for a while, I think you are absolutely right.
First of all: What is an organization?
An organization is often described as a group of people pursuing a common goal.
That's not edgy enough for me. (And in more organizations than one would think it's just not true. But that's another story.)
I would say: An organization is a group of people who follow a common ruleset.
Of course, employment contracts and compliance immediately come to mind. But they are mainly one thing: unnecessary nonsense, theater. They don't really play the role they pretend to be.
The relevant rules are those that truly shape behavior, and they are often one thing: informal. They are grown, evolved. But the nice thing is: because of their nature they can also change - at any time!
How? By ideas being communicated between members of the organization and internalized through imitation. And thus perpetuated socioculturally. The language used plays a deciding role here, as the frame of an idea is always part of its semantic classification.
Therefore it is true: “Language maketh organizations.”
Just for clarification: You wrote that "employment contracts and compliance .... are mainly one thing: unnecessary nonsense, theater." You probably meant something different and forgot to write down a few words: that contracts and compliance are boring but necessary, and that most INTERNALLY set rules are nonsense, or "theatrical".
Language maketh organizations - that's very well put! I like that!
My point is this: contracts and compliance think they shape individual behavior. They do not. Internal rules do. That many of these internal rules are absurd, theatrical and simply blockades that need to be overcome is true.
And to do that, you have to communicate better ideas, using edgy language that creates the right frames.
Very good point. I started my own series about phrases that I have grown allergic to, latest entry: https://djkunar.substack.com/p/please-stop-saying-that-we-need-to I saw you also dislike some words that I have been using in the last years (not mentioned in this article specifically but elsewhere). That was a nice occasion to rethink my own use of language.
Yes, we produced an entire collection of "words from the dark side and words from the light.: It's a poster with more than 300 words, overall, called "The Power of Language". Pretty helpful for anyone who wants to question the language they are using.
I would like to add one more point: Unfortunately, in the times we live in, it is becoming increasingly acceptable to use derogatory and divisive language. This makes it all the more important for organizations to be aware of their own language and to use it carefully.
That's an important addition to the article's topic!
Thanks for adding this, Silke.
I really enjoyed reading your post. It brought clarity and awareness to something that has bothered me for a long time: how the sloppiness of language use leads to great chasms in people's shared understanding. It also reminds me of a time in my life, whilst taking part in an intensive personal development training where we came up with the word 'meaningfying' for the act of making meaning. Later I came across Karl Weick's sensemaking - but somehow it doesn't have quite the same sense of grappling with deeper meaning for me.
Thank you for the lovely comment, Katherine!
"Meaningfying" - that's quite a creating. It's clearly edgier than the rather depreciated "sensemaking", but maybe not as sticky as it should be. But its time may yet come!
Haha, yes, Niels. it may require more people realising the power and value of, and indeed the choice involved in making meaning, for it to get sticky.
Great article!
Made me think about organizations, Dawkins, Minsky, and a lot of other stuff.
Also - super quotable! "People are just not part of organizations." I like that.
As you know, I'm no organizational theorist. :) But after pondering your post for a while, I think you are absolutely right.
First of all: What is an organization?
An organization is often described as a group of people pursuing a common goal.
That's not edgy enough for me. (And in more organizations than one would think it's just not true. But that's another story.)
I would say: An organization is a group of people who follow a common ruleset.
Of course, employment contracts and compliance immediately come to mind. But they are mainly one thing: unnecessary nonsense, theater. They don't really play the role they pretend to be.
The relevant rules are those that truly shape behavior, and they are often one thing: informal. They are grown, evolved. But the nice thing is: because of their nature they can also change - at any time!
How? By ideas being communicated between members of the organization and internalized through imitation. And thus perpetuated socioculturally. The language used plays a deciding role here, as the frame of an idea is always part of its semantic classification.
Therefore it is true: “Language maketh organizations.”
Thanks for commenting, Sebastian!
Just for clarification: You wrote that "employment contracts and compliance .... are mainly one thing: unnecessary nonsense, theater." You probably meant something different and forgot to write down a few words: that contracts and compliance are boring but necessary, and that most INTERNALLY set rules are nonsense, or "theatrical".
Language maketh organizations - that's very well put! I like that!
My point is this: contracts and compliance think they shape individual behavior. They do not. Internal rules do. That many of these internal rules are absurd, theatrical and simply blockades that need to be overcome is true.
And to do that, you have to communicate better ideas, using edgy language that creates the right frames.
Very good point. I started my own series about phrases that I have grown allergic to, latest entry: https://djkunar.substack.com/p/please-stop-saying-that-we-need-to I saw you also dislike some words that I have been using in the last years (not mentioned in this article specifically but elsewhere). That was a nice occasion to rethink my own use of language.
I am happy to hear that. Thanks for commenting!
Yes, we produced an entire collection of "words from the dark side and words from the light.: It's a poster with more than 300 words, overall, called "The Power of Language". Pretty helpful for anyone who wants to question the language they are using.
https://www.redforty2.com/product-page/the-power-of-language-a1-poster