Language

The Hidden Language of Control: How Our Words Reveal Our Deepest Compulsion

Language is more than communication—it’s a window into the human psyche. And if you listen carefully to how we speak, one truth emerges with startling clarity: humans are desperately, fundamentally driven by a need for control. Our words don’t just convey information; they reveal a species-wide obsession with managing, directing, and commanding other people.

The evidence isn’t hidden in obscure linguistic theory. It’s right there in everyday speech, woven so deeply into our communication that we barely notice it. Yet these patterns speak to something profound about human nature—our relentless drive to impose our will on others.

The Command Impulse: When Every Sentence Becomes a Directive

Observe casual conversation for just five minutes, and the pattern becomes clear: we can’t stop giving commands, even when we don’t mean to.

‘Take the M25.’ ‘Try the salmon.’ ‘Don’t forget to ring your mother.’ ‘You should really watch that documentary.’ ‘Let me know what you think.’

These aren’t necessarily authoritarian statements—they’re often well-meaning advice or suggestions. But linguistically, they’re structured as imperatives, positioning the speaker as the director and the listener as the directed. We’ve made the command our default mode of interaction.

Even more telling is how we disguise commands as questions: ‘Could you pass the salt?’ isn’t really asking about your ability—it’s a polite directive. ‘Wouldn’t it be better if we left early?’ isn’t seeking information about objective superiority—it’s a masked attempt to control the decision.

The frequency of these patterns reveals something profound: we’re so oriented towards control that we’ve made direction-giving a basic social reflex. In business and other organisations, this impulse is so recognised that we’ve formalised it as ‘command and control’ structures—explicitly acknowledging that organisational life is fundamentally about some people directing others. What’s revealing is how naturally this formal control translates into everyday language, even in supposedly casual, egalitarian interactions.

The Certainty Addiction: How We Weaponise ‘Obviously’ and ‘Clearly’

Our language is peppered with certainty markers that often reveal not knowledge, but a desperate need to appear in control of information:

‘Obviously, we need to increase the budget.’ ‘Clearly, this is the best approach.’ ‘It’s obvious that she’s not interested.’ ‘Anyone can see that this won’t work.’

These words don’t describe actual obviousness—they’re attempts to control the conversation by making disagreement seem foolish. They’re linguistic power plays, designed to shut down discussion and position the speaker as someone who sees what others miss.

The overuse of certainty language often inversely correlates with actual certainty. The more someone insists something is ‘obvious’, the more they’re trying to control others’ perceptions of a situation that may not be obvious at all.

The Moral Authority Gambit: When Ethics Becomes Coercion

Perhaps no control mechanism is more effective than moral language. We transform personal preferences into ethical imperatives, making resistance seem like character deficiency:

‘Any decent person would help.’ ‘You should do the right thing here.’ ‘It’s only fair that you contribute.’ ‘A good parent would never allow that.’ ‘What would your mother think?’

These constructions are particularly powerful because they position the speaker as morally superior whilst making disagreement feel like moral failing. The person isn’t just declining a request—they’re revealing themselves to be indecent, unfair, or disappointing to deceased relatives.

Religious and cultural values become weapons: ‘That’s not very Christian of you.’ ‘You’re better than that.’ ‘I expected more from someone like you.’ The speaker claims moral authority whilst avoiding direct commands, transforming ‘I want you to do X’ into ‘Good people do X.’

This pattern reveals how readily we conscript ethics into service of control, turning moral frameworks into tools for compelling compliance rather than guides for personal reflection.

The moral authority gambit often employs what might be called the F.O.G.S. of domination: Fear, Obligation, Guilt, and Shame. These emotional states become instruments of control, embedded in our everyday language:

Fear: ‘If you don’t take this seriously, you’ll regret it.’ ‘People who ignore this kind of advice usually end up…’

Obligation: ‘After everything I’ve done for you…’ ‘You owe it to yourself.’ ‘Think about what you owe your family.’

Guilt: ‘I’m disappointed in you.’ ‘You’re letting everyone down.’ ‘How can you be so selfish?’

Shame: ‘You’re better than this.’ ‘I can’t believe someone like you would…’ ‘What’s wrong with you?’

These aren’t mere emotional expressions—they’re systematic tools that domination systems use to maintain compliance. Each F.O.G.S. element transforms resistance from a reasonable response into evidence of personal inadequacy, creating psychological pressure that often proves more effective than direct commands.

Conditional Control: The ‘If-Then’ Manipulation

One of the most revealing patterns is how we use conditional language to exert control over other people’s behaviour:

‘If you really loved me, you would…’ ‘If you want to succeed, you need to…’ ‘If you’re smart, you’ll…’ ‘If I were you, I would…’

These constructions are masterpieces of disguised control. They present the speaker’s desires as logical conclusions rather than personal preferences. They transform ‘I want you to do X’ into ‘Intelligent people do X’—a much more powerful form of influence.

The conditional format provides plausible deniability whilst maximising control. The speaker isn’t technically giving commands—they’re just pointing out ‘logical’ connections. But the effect is to make resistance seem illogical or uncaring.

The Expertise Claim: How ‘I Know’ Becomes ‘You Must’

We constantly assert expertise as a form of control, often in areas where expertise is questionable or irrelevant:

‘I know teenagers, and…’ ‘Having been in business for twenty years…’ ‘As someone who’s been married…’ ‘I know this neighbourhood…’

These phrases aren’t just sharing experience—they’re claiming authority. They’re saying ‘my experience gives me the right to direct your thinking or behaviour.’ The pattern reveals how desperately we want to move from the powerless position of opinion-holder to the powerful position of controlling expert.

Even more telling is how we extend these claims: ‘Trust me on this one.’ ‘Take it from someone who knows.’ ‘You’ll thank me later.’ These phrases explicitly ask others to surrender their own judgement in favour of our supposed superior knowledge.

The Resistance to ‘I Don’t Know’

Perhaps the most revealing evidence of our control obsession is how rarely we admit ignorance. ‘I don’t know’ may be the most honest phrase in human language, yet we avoid it like a confession of weakness.

Instead, we offer speculation as fact: ‘I think it’s probably…’ becomes ‘It’s probably…’ becomes ‘It’s…’ We hedge: ‘From what I understand…’ ‘It seems to me…’ ‘My sense is…’ All of these maintain the illusion that we have some special access to information.

The fear of admitting ignorance reveals the core of our control craving: the terrifying possibility that we might not be in charge, that we might not know what we’re doing, that the universe might be fundamentally beyond our command.

The Deep Psychology of Linguistic Control

These patterns aren’t quirks of language—they’re symptoms of a deeper human condition. Our need for control is so fundamental that it shapes not just what we say, but how we say it. Language becomes our primary tool for imposing order on a chaotic world.

But there’s a deeper dimension to consider: the connection between control and violence. The World Health Organisation’s definition of violence includes “the intentional use of physical force or power” against others, explicitly recognising that power—fundamentally a form of control—can itself be violent. When we examine our linguistic control patterns through this lens, they take on a darker significance.

Scholar Walter Wink identified what he called ‘Domination Systems’—structures characterised by hierarchy, authoritarianism, and the enforcement of status quo through systematic control. These systems don’t require overt physical violence; they operate through what he termed ‘the myth of redemptive violence’, convincing participants that without these control structures, chaos would ensue.

Our everyday language patterns mirror these domination structures in miniature. When we use certainty markers to shut down disagreement, when we disguise commands as logical conclusions, when we claim expertise to direct others’ behaviour, we’re enacting the same fundamental dynamic: using power over others to maintain control. This isn’t necessarily conscious or malicious, but it reveals how deeply embedded domination patterns are in human communication.

The linguist and activist Marshall Rosenberg observed that ‘classifying and judging people promotes violence’, arguing that at the root of much violence—whether verbal, psychological, or physical—is thinking that attributes conflict to wrongness in one’s adversaries. Our certainty language and expertise claims do exactly this: they position disagreement as foolishness and non-compliance as defiance of obvious truth.

We live in an interconnected, unpredictable world where most outcomes are beyond individual control. Yet our language still reflects the mindset of creatures who believe they can command their environment through the force of will and the precision of words.

The Liberation in Linguistic Honesty

Recognising these patterns opens possibilities for both linguistic honesty and psychological freedom. Uncertainty language becomes an option: ‘I hope’ instead of ‘I will’. Questions replace declarations: ‘What do you think?’ instead of ‘Obviously…’

This isn’t about becoming passive or indecisive. It’s about observing the difference between collaborative and controlled communication, between uncertain and predetermined approaches, and between adaptation and domination roles.

The irony is that releasing linguistic control often gives us more actual influence. People respond better to authentic uncertainty than to false certainty, to genuine questions than to disguised commands, to honest ignorance than to pretended expertise.

Conclusion: The Words That Set Us Free

Our language patterns reveal a species caught between the illusion of control and the reality of interdependence. Every command, every certainty claim, every conditional manipulation betrays our deep anxiety about our place in an uncontrollable universe. But more than that, they reveal our participation in what Walter Wink called domination systems—structures that attempt – and most often fail – to maintain order through control rather than collaboration.

This isn’t merely about better communication etiquette. When we recognise these linguistic patterns as manifestations of domination culture, we begin to see how individual speech habits connect to larger systems of psychological and social violence. The manager who uses certainty language to shut down subordinates’ questions, the expert who leverages conditional statements to manipulate behaviour, the friend who disguises commands as logical conclusions—all are participating in the same fundamental dynamic that creates what Gandhi’s grandson called ‘passive violence’: the conscious failure to ensure others’ psychological well-being and development.

But awareness is the first step towards freedom. Recognition of linguistic patterns as symptoms of control compulsion rather than reflections of actual authority opens space for what domination theorists call ‘partnership’ approaches—communication characterised by egalitarian, mutually respectful relationships that value empathy and understanding over compliance and control.

The most powerful language might simply be the language of genuine connection, authentic uncertainty, and shared exploration of a world none of us truly commands. Recognition of compulsive control patterns reveals not just different ways of speaking, but fundamentally different ways of relating—ways that honour the humanity and agency of others rather than seeking to direct and dominate them.

In the end, our craving for control, revealed so clearly in our speech patterns, may point us towards something more valuable: the wisdom to know what we can and cannot control, the courage to speak truthfully about both, and the humility to engage with others as equals in the human experience rather than as subjects to be managed.

The Vocabulary Problem

June 21, 2025

Antimatter principle, Article, Language

Leave a comment

The Vocabulary Problem

How Organisational Language Sabotages Clear Thinking

Update

It’s been more than 10 years since I posted a vocabulary for software development and the Antimatter Principle. I guess it’s time for an update.

The Problem with Words

The words we use to talk about work aren’t neutral. They smuggle in assumptions about human nature, power, and how organisations should function—assumptions that often lead us astray.

Consider the word “management”. It implies that people need to be managed, controlled, directed. It suggests a workplace where humans can’t be trusted to do good work without oversight. The very concept carries the toxicity of industrial-era thinking, where workers are seen as no more than interchangeable parts in a machine.

Or take “leadership”. We talk about it as if it’s some mystical quality possessed by special individuals, rather than what it actually is: the work of helping groups of people coordinate around shared goals. The language makes us search for charismatic leaders instead of building effective coordination systems. It obscures the reality that leadership can emerge from anyone in a group—or even from the group itself—depending on what needs attending to in the moment.

This isn’t just semantic nitpicking. Language shapes thought. When we use words that embed dysfunctional assumptions, we reinforce those assumptions, make them invisible and harder to question.

My Blogging Frustrations

I’m constantly bugged by this when I write about organisations. Every time I want to discuss coordination challenges or decision-making processes, I find myself reaching for words like “managers”, “executives”, or “leadership”—and immediately feeling frustrated because these terms drag along baggage I don’t want. They make me complicit in perpetuating assumptions I consider highly dysfunctional.

You end up in this exhausting dance: either you use the conventional terms and inadvertently reinforce problematic thinking and flawed assumptions, or you spend your energy fighting the language instead of exploring the ideas. Neither feels satisfying.

The Roots of Problematic Language

Most of our organisational vocabulary comes from military, industrial, religious, and political contexts that were built around violence and command-and-control assumptions. But even setting aside whether those assumptions were ever valid, knowledge work is fundamentally different. Creative work is different. The context has changed dramatically, but the language hasn’t kept up.

Here’s what our conventional organisational language assumes:

People need to be managed rather than trusted
Authority flows downward from executives to subordinates
Organisations are hierarchical machines rather than networks of relationships
Work is about following orders rather than meeting needs
Some people are “leaders” whilst others are “followers”
Doing violence in the name of “success” and self-aggrandisement is OK

These assumptions create self-fulfilling prophecies. We build organisations that match our language, then wonder why engagement is low, joy is absent and bureaucracy flourishes.

An Alternative Framework: The Antimatter Principle

What if we rebuilt our organisational vocabulary from the ground up? What if instead of starting with authority and control, we started with a simple question: whose needs are we trying to meet?

This is the core of what I call the Antimatter Principle—a way of thinking about work that puts attending to folks’ needs at the centre of everything. It’s not just about being nicer to people (though that’s a side effect). It’s about creating more effective organisations by aligning around what actually matters.

The Updated Vocabulary

“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

~ Rudyard Kipling

Here’s how common organisational terms look when reframed through the Antimatter Principle. I’ve organised this (updated) vocabulary to tackle the most problematic language first—the hierarchical terms that embed assumptions about power and control. These are followed by the core work concepts and process terminology that form the foundation of the Antimatter Principle.

The bold terms in the hierarchical section are new additions since my original vocabulary, particularly addressing the language that’s been bugging me most as a blogger.

The Hierarchical Terms (New Additions – For Reference Only)

Important caveat: These definitions are provided purely for reference when you encounter these terms in conventional contexts. I don’t recommend using these hierarchical terms at all. Here’s why: these words carry embedded assumptions about power flowing downward, people needing to be controlled, and some individuals being inherently more valuable than others. Even when we try to redefine them, they still smuggle in their original implications. The preferred alternatives that follow each definition attempt to avoid these problematic assumptions, focusing instead on function, coordination, and shared responsibility.

Manager: A person whose specific role is to coordinate how folks’ needs get attentiated; someone who facilitates the attending to various folks’ needs. Note: In non-hierarchical contexts, these functions are often distributed across team members rather than assigned to a single role.
Preferred alternative: Coordinator, Facilitator, Attendant
Invented alternative: Catalyst, Synergist
Management: The practice of coordinating and facilitating the attending to folks’ needs across different people and contexts. Note: In healthy teams, these practices become shared responsibilities rather than concentrated functions.
Preferred alternative: Coordination, Facilitation, Resource Allocation, Attentiation
Invented alternative: Catalysis, Synergy
Executive: A person responsible for making key decisions about which folks’ needs to prioritise, what strategies to use for attentiating them, and in general what direction the organisation will persue. Note: In collaborative contexts, strategic decision-making often emerges from collective sense-making rather than individual authority.
Preferred alternative: Decision-maker, Strategist, Director
Invented alternative: Synthesiser, Nexus
Leader: Someone who helps align folks around attentiating shared needs; a person who stewards the process of attending to collective needs. Note: In distributed teams, leadership becomes a set of practices that anyone can exercise based on context and capability.
Preferred alternative: Steward, Aligner, Guide, Host (Cf. Servant Leader; Host Leader – McKergow)
Invented alternative: Navigator, Enabler, Amplifier
Leadership: The practice of stewarding and aligning folks around attending to folks’ needs. Note: Rather than a role, this becomes a collection of practices distributed throughout the group.
Preferred alternative: Stewardship, Alignment, Guidance, Hosting (Cf. Host Leadership – McKergow)
Invented alternative: Navigation, Enablement, Amplification
Authority: The responsibility and capability to make decisions about whose needs get attentiated and how
Preferred alternative: Decision responsibility, Accountability, Mandate, Remit
Invented alternative: Clearance, Bandwidth, Scope
Hierarchy: A set of collective assumptions about how decision-making should be organised, typically involving beliefs about who has the right to determine which folks’ needs get priority and who should coordinate attending to those needs
Preferred alternative: Decision structure, Coordination network, Accountability web, Responsibility matrix
Invented alternative: Stackism, Pyramid-think, Rank-ism
Organisation: A group of folks who have aligned around attentiating some set of needs (and see: The Needsscape)
Preferred alternative: Group, Collective, Network
Invented alternative: Constellation, Ecosystem, Mesh
Organising: The ongoing work of coordinating how folks attentiate needs
Preferred alternative: Coordinating, Aligning, Networking
Invented alternative: Constellating, Meshing, Ecosysteming

Core Work Concepts:

Success: Meeting folks’ needs, in aggregate, i.e. without undermining other folks’ needs
Failure: Not meeting folks’ needs, in aggregate
Cost: The degree to which some folks’ needs are sacrificed to meet other folks’ needs
Productivity: The ratio of “folks’ needs met” to “folks’ needs sacrificed”
Performance: The relative impact on all the needs of all The Folks That Matter™
Value: The degree to which folks’ needs, in aggregate, are being met
Quality: The degree to which some specific person’s needs are being met

Process and Change:

Change: Adopting different approaches to attending to folks’ needs
Transition: A wholesale replacement of one set of strategies for attending to folks’ needs with another
Retrospective: Taking a look at the strategies and practices presently being used to attend to folks’ needs
Sprint: A time period during which we attend to a selected subset of folks’ needs

Teams and Coordination:

Team: Some folks aligned (in principle) on attending to some folks’ needs
Stakeholders: Those folks whose needs we’re specifically attending to, i.e. The Folks That Matter™

Through this lens, everything looks different. Instead of mystifying leadership or treating management as control, we get precise language about coordination, facilitation, and stewardship of collective needs.

The Practical Impact of Language Shifts

When you change your language, you change what questions you ask. Instead of “How do we manage these people?” you ask “How do we coordinate so everyone’s needs get met?” Instead of “Who’s in charge here?” you ask “Who’s responsible for which decisions about whose needs?”

These different questions lead to different solutions. They point towards flatter structures, clearer communication, and systems that actually work for humans.

The language shift also reveals hidden assumptions. When you can’t easily translate a concept into “meeting folks’ needs”, it’s often because the concept is built on questionable foundations. Terms like “human resources” become obviously problematic when you try to reframe them—people aren’t resources to be consumed.

Building Your Own Coherent Vocabulary

You don’t have to accept your default organisational language. You can choose words that embody the assumptions you actually want to make about work and people.

As a blogger, I’ve found this particularly liberating. Instead of constantly wrestling with loaded terminology, I can create my own coherent vocabulary and use it consistently. Blog readers actually appreciate when writers have a distinct voice and perspective—including how they use language. You’re building an audience over time, so you can gradually introduce your preferred terminology and train readers to think differently.

Start by noticing the language that bugs you. What words make you cringe? What terms carry implications you disagree with? Then experiment with alternatives that better reflect your actual beliefs about how organisations should work.

This isn’t about political correctness or virtue signalling. It’s about clarity of thinking and expression. When your language aligns with your values and your understanding of how work actually happens, everything else becomes easier.

The goal isn’t to never use conventional terms—sometimes we have to meet people where they are. But having our own coherent vocabulary gives us a foundation. It helps us think more clearly and communicate more precisely about what we’re actually trying to accomplish.

Language is the most powerful drug we have for shaping thought. Why not use it intentionally?

Slippery, Tricksy Things: Why Words Invite More Scepticism

June 13, 2025

Article, Language, Meaning

1 Comment

Slippery, Tricksy Things: Why Words Invite More Scepticism

We live in a world built on words. Every conversation, every contract, every constitution rests on the assumption that these curious little symbols we call language can capture reality with reasonable precision. This assumption is not just optimistic—it’s dangerously naïve. Words are far more unreliable than we dare to admit, and our blind trust in them creates cascading problems we rarely recognise.

The irony is immediate and inescapable: these very words you’re reading are performing the same sleight of hand I’m about to warn you against. By calling words ‘slippery, tricksy things’, I’m already shaping your understanding through metaphors that may mislead as much as they illuminate. This isn’t a flaw in the argument—it’s the argument itself, demonstrated in real time.

The Daily Dance of Miscommunication

Consider how often miscommunication derails our best intentions. A casual comment sparks an argument because the speaker meant one thing whilst the listener heard another entirely. An email lands wrong because tone doesn’t translate through text. A political speech rallies supporters whilst simultaneously alienating opponents, despite using identical words. These aren’t isolated failures—they’re glimpses into the fundamental instability of language itself.

How Words Shape What We See

The problem runs deeper than mere misunderstanding. Words actively shape our perception of reality, often in ways we don’t recognise. When we label someone as ‘aggressive’ versus ‘assertive’, we’re not just describing behaviour—we’re constructing it. The choice of word influences how we interpret that person’s actions going forward, creating a feedback loop where language doesn’t just reflect reality but actively moulds it.

When the Stakes Are High

This becomes particularly dangerous in high-stakes contexts. Legal contracts, medical diagnoses, and diplomatic negotiations all depend on precise language, yet every word carries multiple potential meanings. A single ambiguous phrase in a treaty can spark international incidents decades later. Medical terminology that seems crystal clear to doctors often bewilders patients, leading to confusion about treatment options. Even something as seemingly straightforward as defining ‘marriage’ or ‘terrorism’ reveals how slippery our most important concepts become under scrutiny.

The Digital Amplification

The digital age has amplified these problems exponentially. Social media strips away context, body language, and tone, leaving us with naked words that must carry the full weight of human communication. A joke becomes a scandal, a nuanced position gets flattened into a soundbite, and complex ideas get reduced to hashtags. We’re asking language to do work it was never designed to handle.

Orwell’s Warning: When Words Control Thought

Perhaps most troubling is how words can obscure rather than illuminate. Corporate jargon transforms redundancies into ‘rightsizing’ and propaganda becomes ‘strategic communication’. Political rhetoric uses familiar words whilst draining them of meaning—’freedom’, ‘security’, and ‘justice’ become empty vessels that can be filled with whatever agenda serves the speaker. This manipulation of language—what we might call wordwashing—bears an unsettling resemblance to Orwell’s ‘Newspeak’, where the goal isn’t just to communicate but to constrain thought itself by limiting the available vocabulary.

Orwell understood something profound about the relationship between language and thought: if you control the words people can use, you can subvert what they think, and CAN think. In his dystopian vision, concepts like rebellion become literally unthinkable when the words to express them are systematically removed from the language. Whilst we haven’t reached that extreme, we see echoes of this principle everywhere. When ‘torture’ becomes ‘enhanced interrogation’ or ‘civilian casualties’ become ‘collateral damage’, we’re not just changing labels—we’re engaging in wordwashing, making it harder to think clearly about what’s actually happening. The euphemism doesn’t just hide reality; it reshapes our ability to process it.

We mistake the familiarity of these words for understanding, when in reality they’re performing a kind of wordwashing—cleaning up messy realities with prettier language.

Cultivating Linguistic Humility

Perhaps the solution isn’t to abandon language—we can’t—but to approach it with the scepticism it invites. Cultivating what we might call ‘linguistic humility’ means recognising that every word we speak or write is an imperfect approximation of our thoughts. This is precisely what Clean Language, developed by therapist David Grove, attempts to address. By using carefully neutral questions that avoid introducing the questioner’s own assumptions and metaphors, Clean Language reveals how our choice of words shapes and constrains our thinking in ways we rarely notice.

When someone says something that strikes us as obviously wrong or offensive, pausing to consider whether we might be misunderstanding their intended meaning opens new possibilities for dialogue. When crafting important communications, testing our words against different possible interpretations reveals hidden ambiguities before they cause problems.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

This scepticism extends naturally to our own internal dialogue. The stories we tell ourselves about our experiences, our relationships, and our place in the world are all constructed from words. These narratives feel true because they’re the only reality we have access to, but they’re just as fallible as any other linguistic construction. The way we frame our problems to ourselves often determines whether we can solve them.

Navigating the Treacherous Waters

None of this means becoming paralysed by the unreliability of language. Instead, it means becoming more skilful navigators of its treacherous waters. Notice how even that metaphor—’navigating treacherous waters’—imposes a particular frame on the problem, suggesting danger and difficulty when we might equally think of language as a playground or a dance. The metaphors we choose aren’t neutral; they’re already doing interpretative work.

We can learn to hold our words more lightly, to check our understanding more frequently, and to remain curious about what might be getting lost in translation. We can cultivate the patience to work through miscommunications rather than assuming ill intent.

The Paradox of This Very Essay

Words are the tools we use to build meaning, but they’re imperfect tools wielded by imperfect beings. Recognising their limitations isn’t pessimistic—it’s the first step towards using them more wisely. In a world where so much conflict stems from people talking past each other, developing a healthy scepticism about language might be one of the most practical skills we can cultivate.

This essay itself illustrates the problem it describes. Every sentence has been an act of construction, not discovery—I’ve built a particular version of reality using the very medium I’m questioning. The phrase ‘slippery, tricksy things’ from the title isn’t a neutral description; it’s a characterisation that frames words as mischievous rather than, say, fluid or adaptive. Even this meta-commentary is suspect, using words like ‘construction’ and ‘reality’ as if their meanings were self-evident.

The next time you find yourself absolutely certain about what someone meant, or completely confident in your own ability to communicate clearly, remember that you’re working with materials that are inherently unstable. Approach with caution, proceed with humility, and always leave room for the possibility that words have played their most tricksy game of all—convincing us they’re more reliable than they actually are.

And remember too that this warning itself is made of the same unreliable stuff. These final words are no more trustworthy than any others, despite their position at the end where conclusions are supposed to live. The real conclusion might be that there are no safe conclusions when words are involved—only provisional understandings, forever open to revision.

What We Learn When People Talk Out of Their Arses

June 13, 2025

Actionable Insights, Article, Bullshit, Language, Learning

Leave a comment

What We Learn When People Talk Out of Their Arses

We’ve all encountered them—the colleague who speaks with absolute certainty about topics they clearly don’t understand, the dinner party guest who pontificates on complex issues with zero expertise, or the social media influencer dispensing life advice based on a single Google search. But let’s not forget another category: the pontificating experts who venture far beyond their actual domain of knowledge, armed with the credibility of their genuine expertise in one field and the dangerous assumption that it transfers to everything else.

These people, whether they function as complete amateurs or credentialed professionals speaking outside their lane, all engage in talking out of their arses to varying degrees. But rather than simply dismissing them, let’s examine what their confident nonsense can teach us about communication, psychology, and ourselves.

Seven Lessons from Confident Arse Gabblers

Confidence Acts Like a Superpower – How presentation often trumps substance
Our Brains Crave Simple Stories – Why complexity struggles against clear narratives
Intellectual Humility Appears Rare and Valuable – The competitive advantage of knowing your limits
Questions Matter More Than Answers – How to separate valuable enquiry from poor solutions
Expertise Has Expiration Dates and Boundaries – Understanding the limits of authority
We All Have Blind Spots – What overconfidence in others reveals about ourselves
Communication Skills Matter More Than We Think – Why being right isn’t enough

Lesson 1: Confidence Acts Like a Superpower (For Better or Worse)

Watching someone confidently explain something they don’t understand reveals the raw power of presentation over substance. The physicist who confidently explains economics, the finance expert who pontificates about AI, or the tech CEO who offers definitive takes on education reform all demonstrate something unsettling: audiences often prefer confident wrong answers to hesitant right ones.

This teaches us that if we want our legitimate knowledge to have impact, we can’t afford to undersell it with unnecessary hedging and self-doubt. The lesson doesn’t involve becoming overconfident ourselves, but recognising that competence without communication skills often loses to ignorance with charisma. We need to match our expertise with appropriate confidence in how we present it.

More importantly, this dynamic shows us how to become better consumers of information. When someone speaks with unwavering certainty, especially about complex topics, that certainty itself should function as a red flag, not a green light. The most knowledgeable people often show the most awareness of what they don’t know.

Lesson 2: Our Brains Crave Simple Stories

Nonsense-speakers excel at providing clean, simple explanations for messy, complicated realities. They teach us something fundamental about human psychology: we desperately want the world to make sense, even if the sense-making proves wrong. The conspiracy theorist who explains global events through a single shadowy organisation, or the pundit who reduces complex economic trends to one simple cause, satisfies our brain’s hunger for coherent narratives.

This reveals why expert knowledge often struggles to compete with confident ignorance. Real expertise comes with caveats, uncertainties, and acknowledgements of complexity. Fake expertise offers the psychological comfort of certainty and simplicity.

Understanding this dynamic helps us become better communicators of complex ideas. We can learn to provide the clarity people crave without sacrificing accuracy, and to structure our explanations in ways that satisfy the brain’s narrative hunger whilst respecting the complexity of reality.

Lesson 3: Intellectual Humility Appears Rare and Valuable

Every time we encounter someone confidently wrong, we witness the absence of intellectual humility—and by contrast, learn to recognise its presence and value. The person who says ‘I don’t know’ or ‘that falls outside my expertise’ stands out precisely because it occurs so uncommonly.

This teaches us that intellectual humility doesn’t just function as a nice moral trait—it provides a practical competitive advantage. In a world flooded with confident nonsense, the person who accurately represents the limits of their knowledge becomes remarkably trustworthy. They become the ones you actually want to listen to when they do claim to know something.

Moreover, watching confident ignorance in action helps us develop our own intellectual humility. We find it easier to spot overconfidence in others than in ourselves, but once we see the pattern clearly, we can start catching ourselves when we begin to pontificate beyond our competence.

Lesson 4: Questions Matter More Than Answers

Nonsense-speakers often ask important questions, even when they botch the answers spectacularly. The amateur who wonders why experts disagree about nutrition might arrive at absurd conclusions, but they’ve identified a genuine problem in how scientific uncertainty gets communicated. The tech executive who questions traditional education methods might propose terrible solutions, but they’ve highlighted real issues with current systems.

This teaches us to separate the value of questions from the quality of proposed answers. Some of the most important conversations start with naive questions from people who don’t know enough to feel intimidated by complexity. Learning to appreciate good questions whilst rejecting bad answers helps us mine valuable insights from even the most frustrating conversations.

Lesson 5: Expertise Has Expiration Dates and Boundaries

Watching credentialed experts pontificate outside their fields teaches us something crucial about the nature of knowledge itself. The Nobel laureate who becomes a climate change denier, or the brilliant surgeon who spreads vaccine misinformation, shows us that expertise functions as both domain-specific and time-sensitive.

This helps us develop more sophisticated ways of evaluating authority. Instead of asking ‘Does this person have intelligence?’ we learn to ask ‘Does this person possess knowledge about this specific topic?’ and ‘Does their knowledge remain current?’ We start distinguishing between different types of credibility and recognising when someone trades on past achievements to claim present authority they don’t possess.

Lesson 6: We All Have Blind Spots

Perhaps the most valuable lesson from confident nonsense-speakers involves what they reveal about our own potential for overconfidence. The patterns we see in others—the overextension beyond competence, the substitution of confidence for knowledge, the failure to recognise the limits of understanding—represent patterns we all possess the capacity to fall into.

This self-awareness proves practical, not just philosophical. It helps us develop better intellectual habits: seeking out disagreement, checking our confidence against our actual knowledge, and creating systems that prevent us from speaking beyond our competence. It also makes us more effective collaborators, as we become better at recognising when we need other people’s expertise.

Lesson 7: Communication Skills Matter More Than We Think

Confident nonsense-speakers often function as excellent communicators who happen to hold wrong information about the content. They understand their audience, use compelling examples, structure their arguments clearly, and speak with conviction. These represent valuable skills, even when applied to incorrect information.

This teaches us that having correct information doesn’t suffice—we also need to communicate persuasively, clearly, and engagingly. The world contains many knowledgeable people whose good ideas go nowhere because they can’t communicate effectively, whilst less knowledgeable but more charismatic people shape public opinion.

We can learn communication techniques from confident nonsense-speakers whilst applying them to accurate information. Their success reveals what works in human communication, even when their content doesn’t work in reality.

Putting It All Together

The next time you encounter someone confidently explaining something they clearly don’t understand—whether they function as a complete amateur or a credentialed expert speaking outside their lane—resist the urge to simply dismiss them. Instead, treat them as inadvertent teachers offering lessons in communication, psychology, and human nature.

Ask yourself: What does their confidence teach me about presentation? What do their simple explanations reveal about what audiences want? How does their overreach help me recognise my own potential blind spots? What communication techniques make them so persuasive—and how could I use those same techniques when sharing accurate information?

The goal doesn’t involve becoming more like them, but understanding why they prove effective so we can become more effective ourselves—with the crucial difference that we’ll pair good communication with good information and appropriate intellectual humility.

In a world overflowing with confident nonsense, the ability to learn from it rather than just feel frustrated by it becomes a valuable skill. After all, if we find ourselves surrounded by people talking out of their arses, we might as well extract some wisdom from the experience.

Management Gobshites

April 8, 2025

Article, Language, Management

Leave a comment

Management Gobshites

When Management-Speak Crosses the Line

In the tech industry, there exists a peculiar phenomenon: the remarkable ability of managers to speak at interminable length without conveying anything of substance. As software developers and employees, we’ve all experienced it – that meeting where a manager unleashes a torrent of buzzwords, contradictory directives, and unrealistic expectations that leave us questioning our sanity – or theirs. Today, I’d like to introduce you to a colourful Irish term that perfectly captures this behaviour: gobshite.

What Is a “Gobshite” in the Workplace Context?

A gobshite, in its most charitable interpretation, is someone who talks nonsense with remarkable confidence. In the tech world, this manifests as the manager who:

Demands we “leverage synergies to disrupt the paradigm” without explaining what that means
Insists a project that requires six months be completed in two weeks “because the client is excited”
Declares that “coding should be easy” for e.g. tasks involving complex refactoring of legacy systems
Claims your carefully documented technical debt is “just an excuse” for not implementing new features faster

The Buzzword Bonanza

Perhaps the most recognisable trait of managerial gobshitery is an excessive reliance on buzzwords. These linguistic smokescreens create the illusion of expertise whilst masking a fundamental lack of understanding.

“We need to pivot to a cloud-native, AI-driven microservice architecture with blockchain integration for maximum DevSecOps agility.”

Translation: “I read about these technologies in a LinkedIn post and now I’m insisting we use them without understanding what they are, the implications or the consequences.”

The Impossible Triangle: Good, Fast, and Cheap

A classic scenario: The manager who demands software that is high-quality, developed quickly, and inexpensive – whilst refusing to acknowledge that these three attributes form a triangle where you can only realistically achieve two.

“I know we agreed on the scope, but can we add these fifteen new features? The deadline stays the same, of course. Oh, and we’re cutting the budget by 30%.”

This isn’t just unreasonable – it’s a form of magical thinking that places impossible burdens on development teams.

The Expertise Gap

One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with managerial gobshites is their tendency to make technical decisions despite lacking technical expertise.

“Why are you suggesting PostgreSQL? I heard NoSQL is faster. Let’s use MongoDB for everything.”

This casual dismissal of developer expertise is both demoralising and dangerous for project outcomes. It’s the equivalent of telling a surgeon which scalpel to use despite never having performed an operation.

The Human Cost

Beyond the frustration and eye-rolling, this behaviour has real consequences. Developers working under managers who consistently speak nonsense experience:

Increased stress from trying to meet impossible demands
Diminished satisfaction when their expertise is ignored
Lower productivity due to constantly shifting priorities
Higher burnout rates from fighting unwinnable battles

Breaking the Cycle

So how do we address the gobshite phenomenon in our workplaces? A few suggestions:

Ask for clarity: When faced with buzzword soup, politely ask for concrete examples or specific actions
Document everything: Keep records of unreasonable requests and contradictory directives
Educate sympathetically: Offer to explain technical concepts in accessible ways without condescension
Document everything: Keep records of changing priorities
Set boundaries: Learn to say no professionally when faced with impossible demands
Document everything: Keep records of all interactions with gobshites
Seek allies: Build relationships with managers who do understand the technical realities
Document everything:Oh, did I mention document everything?

Conclusion

Not all managers are gobshites. The must be one or two somewhere out there that aren’t. Those few are thoughtful, technically knowledgeable folks who create environments where developers can thrive. These few managers understand that their role is to remove obstacles, not create them through nonsensical directives.

But for all those who do regularly spout meaningless jargon and impossible demands – perhaps it’s time we had a term to describe the phenomenon. And “gobshite” fits the bill perfectly.

The next time you’re nodding along in a meeting whilst your manager explains how you need to “synergise cross-platform engagement metrics to create sticky user experiences,” remember: you’re not alone in recognising gobshitery when you hear it.

The Power of Ow

March 26, 2025

Actionable Insights, Alien tech, Article, Culture change, Dialogue, General, Language, Productivity, Profanity

Leave a comment

The Power of Ow

Research suggests that vocalising pain through exclamations like “ow” might actually help reduce the experience of pain. This natural response appears to serve as more than just a communication tool—it may be an evolutionary mechanism that helps us cope with discomfort. But could these insights extend beyond physical pain to the psychological discomfort experienced in workplace settings, particularly in high-pressure tech environments?

The Science Behind “Ow”

When we stub our toe or burn our hand, saying “ow” is often an automatic response. Researchers have found evidence that these pain vocalisations aren’t merely symbolic—they may serve a biological function.

There is growing scientific interest in how vocalisation might influence our experience of pain. While specific research on saying “ow” is limited, studies examining related forms of vocal expression suggest that verbalization may play a role in pain modulation.

This phenomenon is similar to the well-documented finding that swearing can increase pain tolerance—a discovery made by psychologist Richard Stephens and colleagues at Keele University. Their research demonstrated that participants who swore during painful experiences could endure discomfort significantly longer than those who used neutral words. Interestingly, they also found that this pain-relieving effect was stronger in people who swear less frequently in everyday life. Regular swearers appeared to develop a tolerance to the pain-relieving effects, suggesting that the emotional impact of verbal expression may diminish with overuse.

Beyond Physical Pain: Emotional Expression in the Workplace

The question arises: if vocalising physical pain helps us process and potentially reduce that discomfort, could expressing emotional or psychological pain serve a similar function in workplace settings?

Tech environments, particularly software development teams, often experience unique stressors:

Tight deadlines and sprint pressures
Debugging complex problems
Navigating team dynamics and communication challenges
Balancing quality with time constraints
Micromanagement and unreasonable expectations

Yet in professional settings, particularly in tech culture, there’s often an implicit expectation to remain stoic and solution-focused rather than acknowledging discomfort.

The Cost of Suppressing Workplace “Ow” Moments

Research in organisational psychology suggests that emotional suppression—holding in negative feelings rather than acknowledging them—can lead to increased stress levels, reduced job satisfaction, and eventually burnout.

Studies in workplace psychology have found that environments where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns and acknowledging difficulties tend to show better team performance and employee wellbeing. Research indicates that teams perform better when members can exclaim about challenges without fear of embarrassment or rejection.

Creating Space for “Ow” in Tech Workplaces

Those tech companies concerned with engagement and productivity are beginning to recognise the value of creating environments where team members can express discomfort without fear of judgement. Practices that support this include:

Regular retrospectives where team members can openly discuss challenges
Normalised language around struggle (“This is really hard right now”)
Leadership that models vulnerability and acknowledges difficulties
Mental health resources and support systems

By creating environments where the equivalent of saying “ow” is not just permitted but recognised as healthy, organisations may help team members process their difficulties more effectively and build resilience.

The Balancing Act

Of course, there’s a delicate balance to maintain. Constant complaining without problem-solving can create toxic environments. The goal isn’t endless vocalisation of pain but rather acknowledging real discomfort as part of the process of addressing it.

Just as saying “ow” doesn’t fix a stubbed toe but helps us process the pain, acknowledging workplace challenges doesn’t immediately solve them—but it may give us the emotional capacity to address them more effectively.

Conclusion

The instinctive act of saying “ow” reveals something fundamental about human psychology: expression helps us process discomfort. As workplace cultures evolve, particularly in high-pressure tech industries, creating space for the psychological equivalent of “ow” may prove crucial for sustainable performance and wellbeing.

By understanding and applying the science of pain vocalisation to emotional and psychological stressors, organisations can potentially create more resilient, honest, engaging, and ultimately more productive work environments—where acknowledging difficulty becomes not a sign of weakness, but a step toward strength.

Punching Your Customers in the Face Won’t Work

January 29, 2025

Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Communication, Customers, Language, Marketing, Nonviolence, Nonviolent Communication, Psychology, Relationships, Trust

Leave a comment

Punching Your Customers in the Face Won’t Work

[How implicit violence is a real turn-off in Marcomms]

“If you want people to buy your stuff (products, services, ideas, w.h.y.) punch them in the face. And keep punching them until they pony up the dosh.”

It’s a statement that perfectly captures what’s wrong with much of today’s marketing landscape. You’ve seen it everywhere: the endless popup notifications, the aggressive email campaigns, the pushy sales calls, the telling people what they “should” do. And the relentless social media ads that seem to follow us across the internet like a determined stalker.

The Seductive Logic of Aggressive Marketing

The reasoning behind such aggressive tactics seems sound at first glance. After all, in a world of information overload, you need to break through the noise. You need to be noticed. You need to be remembered. And what better way than to keep hammering away at your potential customers until they finally give in?

This approach assumes that persistence equals persuasion, that annoyance eventually leads to acceptance, and that if you just keep “punching” long enough, people will eventually surrender their dosh in self-defense.

The Marketer’s Dilemma

Let’s pause for a moment to acknowledge a real frustration that many marketers face. Your company has created something valuable. You’ve poured time, energy, and resources into developing a product or service that could genuinely improve people’s lives. You see people struggling with problems that your offering could solve, yet they scroll past, ignore your messages, or dismiss your solution without giving it a fair chance.

It’s maddening. You know the value is there. You’ve seen it transform lives. You have testimonials proving it works. So when people don’t even take the time to even listen to what you’re offering, it’s tempting to think that maybe they need a stronger push – a metaphorical “punch” to wake them up to what they’re missing.

This frustration often leads to an escalation in marketing tactics. It’s a natural human response – when we feel ignored or dismissed, our primitive brain can trigger an aggressive response. We see this pattern everywhere from toddlers throwing tantrums to adults road rage. That same instinct can surface in marketing: if gentle nudges aren’t working, maybe it’s time for a shove. If whispers are being ignored, maybe it’s time to shout. If they won’t listen to reason, maybe they need to feel some pain.

This descent into aggressive tactics is completely understandable from a psychological perspective. Frustration naturally breeds combative responses – it’s wired into our survival instincts. But in marketing, as in most modern social interactions, this escalation typically makes things much worse, not better.

The Language of Force

What makes this situation even more toxic is how this aggression seeps into our marketing language. We deploy what might be called “weasel words” – seemingly innocuous terms that rankle, that surreptitiously undermine trust and create division. Think about common marketing phrases:

“You should act now!” (Creating artificial urgency while breeding shame and resentment)
“Obviously, this is an amazing deal” (Subtly shaming anyone who might disagree)
“Any reasonable person would jump at this opportunity” (Dismissing valid hesitation)
“Professional results guaranteed” (Using vague standards to trigger insecurity)
“You deserve better than your current solution” (Manipulating through false elevation)

These linguistic choices might seem strategic, but they’re actually subtle forms of violence against our audience. They create psychological pressure that people can sense, even if they can’t articulate why they feel uncomfortable with the message.

Why This Approach Fails

The problem is that this strategy fundamentally misunderstands human psychology and the dynamics of modern commerce. Here’s what actually happens when you try to “punch” your way to sales:

First, you trigger the psychological principle of reactance. When people feel their freedom of choice is being threatened, they instinctively resist. The harder you push, the stronger their resistance becomes.

Second, you damage trust. Every aggressive marketing tactic, every manipulative sales technique, every pushy follow-up erodes the foundation of trust that’s essential for any lasting business relationship.

Third, you create negative associations with your brand. When people associate your product or service with annoyance and pressure, they’re not just refusing to buy – they’re actively avoiding you and warning others to do the same. After all, few folks like getting punched in the face.

The Alternative: Building Relationships

Instead of throwing marketing punches, successful modern businesses are finding success through a radically different approach:

They share genuine value before asking for anything in return. They create helpful content, offer meaningful insights, and solve real problems for their audience – whether they buy or not.
They respect boundaries and practice permission-based marketing. They understand that trust is earned through consistency and respect, not conquered through persistence and pressure.
They focus on building relationships rather than closing sales. They know that a loyal customer who trusts your brand is worth far more than a dozen one-time buyers who feel manipulated into purchasing.
They choose language that invites rather than demands, that acknowledges rather than assumes, and that respects rather than manipulates. Instead of “You should buy now,” they might say “Here’s how this could help.” Instead of “Obviously, this is what you need,” they might share “Here’s what others have found valuable.” And cf. nonviolent communication (Rosenberg).

The Long Game

Yes, this approach takes longer. Yes, it requires more patience and creativity. And yes, it might mean watching some potential short-term sales slip away. But it builds something far more valuable: a sustainable business based on trust, respect, and mutual benefit.

The next time you’re tempted to “punch” your way to sales, remember: The goal isn’t to win a fight – it’s to win trust. Not to knock people down, but to lift them up. Not to wear them down until they buy, but to build them up until they can’t imagine not being your customer.

In the end, the most effective marketing doesn’t leave bruises – it leaves lasting positive impressions that attend to folks’ needs, that turn customers into advocates and skeptics into believers.

A Path to Better Team Communication

December 22, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Communication, Community, Conversations, Empathy, Fellowship, Language, Quintessence, Relationships, Social engineering, Teambuilding, Workshops

Leave a comment

A Path to Better Team Communication

The Power of Communication Preferences

Communication lies at the heart of effective teamwork, yet we often overlook how differently each of us prefers to communicate, and be communicated with.

Many’s the time I’ve invited teams to spend a day exploring their individual communications styles using Wilson Learning’s Social Styles model and approach. The aim has always been simple yet profound: to help team members equip themselves with genuine empathy for each other’s communications preferences. At the heart of Social Styles lies a fundamental observation—when we tailor our communication style to match the preferences of our recipient, we’re more likely to be understood – and appreaciated, too.

This insight has proven transformative across many teambuilding workshops, where team members discover not just how they prefer to communicate, but how their fellows’ preferences might differ from their own. Time and again, I’ve watched as understanding dawns and teammates begin to see their past communication challenges in a new light.

The Social Styles Framework Explained

At its core, the Social Styles model recognises that people tend to display consistent patterns in how they prefer to communicate and interact with others. These patterns form distinct styles, each with its own strengths and characteristics. The value of this approach lies in its simplicity: by understanding these patterns, we can adapt our communication with others to better resonate with them.

A Model, Not a Box

It can be helpful to understand that Social Styles is a model—a lens through which we can view and understand communication preferences.

“All models are wrong – some are useful”

~ George Box

It’s not meant to pigeonhole individuals into rigid categories. People are complex and adaptable, often displaying different styles in different contexts or combining various aspects of multiple styles. The model serves as a practical tool for understanding and improving communication, not as a definitive categorisation of personality types.

The Four Primary Social Styles

Analytical Style

Analyticals are thoughtful, methodical, and detail-oriented. They prefer facts and data over emotions and tend to approach situations with careful consideration. These individuals value accuracy and logic above speed and often require thorough information before making decisions.

Driver Style

Drivers are direct, decisive, and results-focused. They communicate succinctly and prioritise outcomes over relationships. Time-conscious and task-oriented, Drivers appreciate efficiency and may come across as impatient with lengthy discussions or emotional considerations.

Expressive Style

Expressives are enthusiastic, creative, and people-oriented. They communicate with animation and energy, often using stories and metaphors. These individuals generate ideas readily and prefer big-picture thinking to detailed analysis. They value recognition and opportunities for social interaction.

Amiable Style

Amiables are supportive, patient, and relationship-focused. They excel at creating harmony and building consensus within teams. These individuals prefer cooperative approaches to competitive ones and may take time to build trust before sharing opinions openly.

I’ll add a new section after “The Four Primary Social Styles” and before “The Sixteen Sub-Styles”:

Different Styles, Different Communication Needs

Understanding how each Social Style approaches communication reveals fascinating insights into what different people need from their interactions. These varying needs often explain why what works brilliantly for one colleague might fall completely flat with another.

What Analyticals Need

Analyticals thrive on detail and precision. When communicating with them, they need time to process information, and they appreciate written documentation they can review thoroughly. They’re likely to become frustrated by vague statements or emotional appeals without supporting evidence. In meetings, they tend to need clear agendas and time to prepare their thoughts in advance.

What Drivers Need

Drivers need efficiency and results-focused communication. They appreciate direct approaches that get straight to the point and outline clear outcomes. They become impatient with lengthy preambles or excessive relationship-building conversation. When presenting to Drivers, they need you to lead with conclusions and have supporting details ready only if requested.

What Expressives Need

Expressives need engagement and interaction. They thrive on enthusiasm and appreciate when others share their energy for ideas and possibilities. They need time to explore concepts verbally and often process their thoughts through discussion. In presentations, they need the big picture first and appreciate visual aids and stories that bring concepts to life.

What Amiables Need

Amiables need personal connection and harmony. They appreciate when others take time to build rapport and show genuine interest in their perspectives. They need a safe space to share their thoughts and may require explicit invitation to contribute in group settings. When receiving feedback, they need it delivered with sensitivity and appreciation for their efforts.

The Impact in Practice

Understanding these varying needs transforms everyday workplace interactions. A status update that satisfies a Driver’s need for brevity might leave an Analytical feeling uninformed. Similarly, an Expressive’s enthusiastic brainstorming session might overwhelm an Amiable who needs more time to interact and chat.

The key isn’t to completely reshape our communication style for each interaction, but rather to make adjustments that acknowledge and respect these different needs. For instance, when sharing important news:

For Analyticals: Provide detailed written documentation alongside verbal explanations
For Drivers: Start with the bottom line, then be ready with supporting details if requested
For Expressives: Create opportunities for discussion and exploration of implications
For Amiables: Take time to check in personally and ensure they feel comfortable with changes

This understanding leads us to a crucial question for self-reflection: How often do you consciously attend to the communications needs of your team mates, and others? It’s a simple question, yet one that can transform our daily interactions when we pause to consider it regularly.

The Sixteen Sub-Styles: Understanding Blended Characteristics

Just as colours blend to create new shades, Social Styles often combine in unique ways within individuals. Whilst we might have a dominant style, many of us display characteristics of other styles in varying degrees. These combinations, or sub-styles, offer a richer understanding of how we communicate and interact. Think of them as subtle variations that help explain why two ‘Drivers’, for instance, might approach the same interaction rather differently.

Understanding these blends is particularly valuable because it reinforces that we’re not dealing with rigid categories, but rather with fluid combinations of traits and preferences. As you explore these combinations, you might recognise aspects of yourself or your colleagues in several of them—and that’s entirely natural. The sub-styles help us appreciate the nuanced ways in which communication preferences can manifest.

Driver Blends

Driver-Driver: Highly assertive and direct, with strong control needs
Driver-Analytical: Strategic decision-maker combining speed with analysis
Driver-Expressive: Dynamic and persuasive, with strong leadership tendencies
Driver-Amiable: Results-focused but maintains awareness of team harmony

Analytical Blends

Analytical-Analytical: Extremely detail-oriented and systematic
Analytical-Driver: Methodical yet decisive, values efficient processes
Analytical-Expressive: Combines careful analysis with creative solutions
Analytical-Amiable: Thorough and considerate, builds trust through expertise

Expressive Blends

Expressive-Expressive: Highly energetic and socially engaging
Expressive-Driver: Charismatic leader who drives for results
Expressive-Analytical: Creative problem-solver with attention to detail
Expressive-Amiable: Enthusiastic team-builder, focuses on positive relationships

Amiable Blends

Amiable-Amiable: Deeply supportive and relationship-focused
Amiable-Driver: Balanced approach to task and relationship needs
Amiable-Analytical: Patient problem-solver who values harmony
Amiable-Expressive: Warm and engaging, builds strong team connections

Style Interactions in Practice

Understanding these nuanced combinations helps teams appreciate the complexity of workplace interactions. For instance, an Analytical-Driver might need to consciously soften their approach when working with an Amiable-Expressive colleague, who may require more personal connection before diving into tasks.

Why Teams Benefit from Style Awareness

Breaking Down Communication Barriers

When team members understand that their colleagues aren’t being deliberately ornery but rather receiving communications through their natural style, tensions often dissolve. A direct communicator might learn to soften their approach with more relationship-oriented colleagues, whilst analytical team members might learn to provide more emotional context when needed.

Building Empathy Through Understanding

The day-long exploration of Social Styles serves as more than just a training exercise—it becomes a shared experience that builds lasting empathy and fellowship. Team members often experience ‘aha’ moments when they realise why past communications may have gone awry.

The Art of Style Flexing

Adapting Without Compromising

The most powerful insight from Social Styles is that we can maintain our authentic selves whilst adjusting our communication approach. This isn’t about changing who we are—it’s about attending to others’ needs and being more effective in how we convey our messages to different audiences.

Practical Applications in Daily Work

Teams who embrace style flexing often report improved outcomes in discussions, where different perspectives are better understood and valued; conflict resolution, as team members recognise triggers and preferences; and decision-making processes, where various approaches to processing information are accommodated.

Impact of Sub-Style Recognition

Understanding these nuanced combinations provides teams with a more sophisticated toolkit for communication. It helps explain why two people who share a primary style might still approach situations differently, leading to more precise adaptations in communication approaches.

Measuring Success

The true measure of success in implementing Social Styles awareness comes not from the workshop day itself, but from the subtle changes that follow. Teams typically report fewer misunderstandings, more productive meetings, and a general sense of improved collaboration and fellowship.

Looking Ahead

As our workplaces become increasingly diverse and complex, the ability to flex one’s communication style becomes not just useful, but essential. The investment in understanding Social Styles continues to pay dividends long after the initial training day, creating more resilient and effective teams.

Conclusion

Many’s the time I’ve witnessed the transformation that occurs when teams grasp the power of Social Styles. The initial scepticism – a common early response – often gives way to genuine appreciation for the differences among team members, and more importantly, for the tools to bridge those differences effectively.This understanding isn’t just a WIBNI or “nice to have”—it’s a crucial element of successful team dynamics. Remember, the goal isn’t to label or limit people, but rather to provide a practical approach for improving communication and understanding across teams, and throughout organisations.

Terminology in Organisational Psychotherapy

December 16, 2024

Article, Dialogue, Empathy, Language, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Reflections, Relationships, SAR Organisations

3 Comments

Terminology in Organisational Psychotherapy

When working in organisational psychotherapy, I often struggle with terminology. Traditional terms like “client” feel overly generic – after all, accountants and lawyers have clients too. Meanwhile, “patient” carries unnecessary medical and pathological overtones that hinders and undermines therapeutic work.I have long felt a need for a different term for organisations in therapy. I thus hereby propose “SAR organisation” and seek your views.

A New Proposal: SAR Organisations

This blog post proposes a new term: “SAR” – standing for Surfacing And Reflecting. This fresh terminology offers a more precise and enabling way to refer to organisations engaged in psychotherapy, free from the baggage of traditional labels. Under this proposal, SAR organisations would be understood as those actively engaging in surfacing collective assumptions and beliefs, while simultaneously reflecting on them, creating continuous ah-ha! moments of discovery and understanding in the therapeutic space.

Why We Need New Language

The words we choose shape therapeutic relationships and expectations. Traditional terms carry implicit meanings that can impede therapeutic work. A new term like SAR gives us the opportunity to build meaning intentionally, focused on the actual work of organisational psychotherapy.

The Proposed SAR Framework

SAR organisations, by this new definition, would be understood as engaged in their own therapeutic journey through the twin processes of surfacing and reflecting. These processes happen simultaneously – each surfaced collective assumption or belief becomes material for reflection, which in turn reveals new patterns, creating a rich therapeutic dialogue. This approach is thoroughly explored in my book “Memeology: Surfacing and reflecting on the organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs”, a self-help guide for organisations embarking on and engaged in this journey.

Sidebar – Understanding “Surfacing” and “Reflecting”

“Surfacing” in Organisational Psychotherapy

In the context of organisational psychotherapy, surfacing refers to the process of bringing into awareness the hidden assumptions, beliefs, behaviours, and ways of working that shape organisational life. These often operate below the surface of conscious awareness, influencing decisions, relationships, and outcomes without being explicitly acknowledged. Surfacing isn’t about digging for problems; rather, it’s about making visible the invisible forces that shape how the organisation functions.

“Reflecting” in Organisational Psychotherapy

Reflecting involves the organisation collectively making sense of what has surfaced, while holding in mind the organisation’s fundamental purpose and goals. This isn’t merely thinking about what has emerged – it’s an active process of examining these elements from multiple perspectives, understanding their implications, and considering their origins and impacts.

The reflecting process naturally leads to evaluating how well current assumptions and beliefs serve the organisation’s purpose. It invites exploration of alternatives: might different assumptions or beliefs better support the organisation’s aims? This evaluation isn’t about judgment but about effectiveness – how well do our current ways of thinking and working serve our purpose?

Reflection in this context is both individual and collective, involving the whole organisation in making meaning of their experiences and discoveries, always in relation to where the organisation aims to go and what it aims to achieve.

The Interplay of Surfacing and Reflecting

Crucially, surfacing and reflecting aren’t sequential steps but deeply intertwined processes. As assumptions surface, they’re immediately available for reflection against organisational purpose, and this reflection often brings new aspects to the surface. This continuous interplay creates a dynamic process of discovery and understanding that characterises effective organisational psychotherapy. Like a conversation that flows naturally between observation and insight, surfacing and reflecting work together to deepen organisational awareness and enable purposeful growth.

Benefits of This New Terminology

Fresh Start

By adopting a new term, we free ourselves from the historical and contextual baggage of words like “client” and “patient”.

Process Recognition

The proposed term SAR acknowledges the actual therapeutic work being done – the continuous interplay of surfacing and reflecting that characterises effective organisational psychotherapy.

Professional Clarity

This new terminology helps differentiate organisational psychotherapy from both individual therapy and, especially, traditional consulting, while maintaining appropriate therapeutic boundaries.

Potential Implementation

SAR terminology can shift our professional language in therapeutically beneficial ways:

Instead of “therapy sessions”, we could have “SAR sessions”
Rather than “therapeutic progress”, we might discuss “SAR insights”
Where we once had a “therapy practice”, we could have a “SAR practice”

Looking Forward

This proposal for new terminology in organisational psychotherapy offers an opportunity to better reflect the reality of the work. The suggested shift from “client” or “patient” to “SAR organisation” may seem subtle, but it carries significant implications for how we think about and conduct organisational psychotherapy.

We put this proposal forward for consideration by those folks interested in organisational psychotherapy, believing it offers a helpful way to move beyond the limitations of traditional terminology.

An Intro to General Semantics: How Language Shapes Our Reality and Organisational Behaviour

October 26, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Dialogue, General Semantics, Korzybski, Language, Nonviolent Communication, Organisational Therapy, Writing

Leave a comment

An Intro to General Semantics: How Language Shapes Our Reality and Organisational Behaviour

The Birth of a Revolutionary Framework

When Polish-American scholar Alfred Korzybski published “Science and Sanity” in 1933, few could have predicted its profound impact on fields ranging from psychotherapy to artificial intelligence. As shells exploded around him during World War I, Korzybski began questioning why humanity, despite its technological progress, remained trapped in cycles of self-destruction. His answer would revolutionise our understanding of human consciousness and communication.

The Map Is Not the Territory: A Fundamental Insight

Picture holding a map of London whilst standing in Trafalgar Square. The map helps you navigate, but you can’t feel the spray from the fountains or hear the pigeons from looking at it. This visceral distinction between our representations and reality forms the cornerstone of General Semantics. Every word we speak, every model we create, every organisational chart we draw – these are maps, not territories.

Time-Binding: Humanity’s Unique Superpower

Unlike other species, humans possess what Korzybski called “time-binding” – our ability to build upon previous generations’ knowledge exponentially. Consider how a modern software developer stands upon layers of accumulated wisdom: from Boolean algebra to quantum computing. The time-binding concept revolutionises how we view human potential and organisational learning.

Breaking the ‘Is’ of Identity: Language Shapes Reality

“The meeting was a disaster.” “John is lazy.” “Our team is dysfunctional.” General Semantics reveals how such statements trap us in rigid thinking. By confusing our abstractions with reality, we limit our ability to perceive and respond to change. Modern organisations particularly suffer from this “is” of identity, fossilising temporary conditions into permanent judgments.

From Theory to Practice: Applications in Modern Contexts

Korzybski’s insights have moved from theoretical curiosity to practical necessity. As organisations grapple with unprecedented complexity—from remote team dynamics to artificial intelligence—General Semantics offers powerful tools for clarity and understanding.

Consider how often misunderstandings arise from confusing our maps (models, frameworks, procedures) with actual territories (human experiences, market realities, organisational dynamics). When a CEO declares “our culture is broken” or a team leader states “this always happens with offshore teams,” they demonstrate exactly the kind of linguistic traps that General Semantics helps us recognise, and avoid.

The practical applications of these principles extend far beyond mere quibbles about language. They fundamentally reshape how we:

Approach problem-solving in complex systems
Build and maintain relationships across cultural boundaries
Design and implement organisational change initiatives
Develop more effective communication strategies
Navigate rapidly evolving technological landscapes

As we explore these applications, we’ll see how General Semantics transforms from abstract theory into concrete practice, starting with its influence on Organisational Psychotherapy and extending into our modern digital realm.

Organisational Transformation

My work in the field of Organisational Psychotherapy, initiated in the early 1990s, demonstrates how General Semantics principles can revolutionise workplace dynamics. By examining how language patterns shape organisational culture, leaders can catalyse profound transformational change in shared assumptions and beliefs.

Digital Age Relevance

In our era of fake news and AI-generated content, Korzybski’s insights about the levels of abstraction between reality and representation have become urgently relevant. “ETC: A Review of General Semantics“, published quarterly since 1943, continues to explore these applications in contemporary contexts.

The Structural Differential: Making Abstraction Visible

Korzybski’s Structural Differential model remains one of the most powerful tools for understanding how meaning emerges – and distorts – through layers of abstraction. In organisational contexts, this model helps teams recognise how their maps (policies, procedures, metrics) relate to their territories (actual human behaviours and outcomes).

Beyond Criticism: Embracing Complexity

While some have criticised General Semantics for its dense terminology, this complexity reflects the depth of its insights. Modern neuroscience and cognitive psychology continue to validate Korzybski’s core principles, demonstrating their fundamental alignment with how our brains process reality.

Looking Forward: General Semantics in the 21st Century

As we grapple with artificial intelligence, virtual realities, and increasingly complex global challenges, General Semantics offers crucial concepts and tools for maintaining our connection to reality while navigating multiple layers of abstraction. Its principles become more relevant, not less, as our maps multiply and evolve.

The growing influence of General Semantics in fields from organisational development to artificial intelligence suggests that Korzybski’s insights were far ahead of their time. As we face increasingly complex challenges in communication, technology, and human understanding, the principles of General Semantics offer a robust framework for navigating our rapidly evolving landscape of meaning and representation.

Addendum: E-Prime – A Practical Implementation of General Semantics

A fascinating practical application of General Semantics principles emerged in the form of E-Prime (short for English-Prime or English Prime, sometimes É or E′) developed by D. David Bourland Jr. in the 1940s. E-Prime consists of English without any form of the verb “to be” (am, is, are, was, were, be, been, being). This linguistic practice directly addresses Korzybski’s concerns about the “is” of identity and predication.

How E-Prime Works

Consider these transformations:

“The meeting is boring” becomes “The meeting seems boring to me right now”
“She is a poor manager” becomes “She manages her team differently than I would prefer”
“This project is a failure” becomes “This project has not met our expectations”

Benefits in Organisational Context

E-Prime encourages:

Greater personal responsibility (“I feel cold” rather than “It is cold”)
More precise observations (“The team delivered the project three days late” versus “The team is inefficient”)
Clearer thinking about change and potential (“This approach invites improvement” rather than “This approach is wrong”)

Challenges and Limitations

Writing in E-Prime presents significant challenges, particularly in everyday communication. However, even occasional practice can heighten awareness of how language shapes perception and judgment. Many practitioners use E-Prime as an exercise in clarity rather than a constant requirement.

Modern Applications

Some organisations now incorporate E-Prime exercises in:

Leadership development programmes
Conflict resolution training
Technical documentation
Performance feedback sessions

Note: This blog post is based on my own personal understanding and experience with General Semantics principles. For more detailed exploration of these concepts, readers might wish to consult “Science and Sanity” by Alfred Korzybski and the continuing publications in “ETC: A Review of General Semantics.”

Terms, They Are A-Changing

October 17, 2024

Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Careers, Collaboration, Culture change, Dialogue, Language, Product development, Quintessence, Software development

Leave a comment

Terms, They Are A-Changing

The Language Shock of ’78

Picture this: It’s 1978, and I’m stepping into my first job in the fledgling computer industry. The air buzzes with excitement, but as my colleagues start talking, I feel like I’ve landed on an alien planet.

“We need to optimize the 6502 assembly code, getter understand the new BASIC interpreter, and ensure ithe systerm is compatible with the brief.”

My mind reels. 6502? BASIC interpreter? System? I nod along, praying my bewilderment isn’t showing. Little did I know, this baptism by fire was just the beginning of a lifelong dance with our ever-evolving lexicon.

The Tech Terminology Tango

Fast forward to today. The 6502 processor is a relic, and BASIC has long since given way to Python, JavaScript, and beyond. We’ve pirouetted from punch cards to the cloud, from floppy disks to SSDs.

Who could have imagined, back when we were coaxing life into PET computers and Exidy Sorcerers, that we’d casually drop terms like ‘cryptocurrency’, ‘artificial intelligence’, or ‘quantum computing’ into water cooler conversations?

Language in a Social Revolution

But it’s not just tech jargon that’s been doing the cha-cha. Our social vocabulary has undergone a seismic shift. Words once deemed acceptable now make us cringe, while new terms emerge to embrace our expanding understanding of identity and inclusion.

Remember when ‘bad’ meant… well, bad? Now it’s good. And ‘literally’ doesn’t always mean literally anymore. It’s enough to make a linguist’s head spin!

Shannon’s Revelation: The Mathematics of Meaning

As we marvel at the evolution of language, it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the groundwork laid by Claude Shannon, the father of information theory. Back in 1948, Shannon published “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” a paper that would revolutionise our understanding of language and data transmission.

Shannon’s theory introduced the concept of ‘bits’ as units of information, laying the foundation for digital communication. But more than that, his work provided insights into the very nature of language and meaning.

In Shannon’s framework, language is a code—a system for transmitting information from a sender to a receiver. The effectiveness of this transmission depends on the shared understanding of the code between sender and receiver. Sound familiar? It’s exactly what we grapple with as language evolves!

When we coin new terms or shift the meaning of existing ones, we’re essentially updating our collective codebook. Each new word or meaning is like a compression algorithm, packing complex ideas into concise packages. ‘Cryptocurrency,’ for instance, encapsulates an entire economic and technological paradigm in a single word.

But Shannon’s theory also highlights the challenges of this linguistic evolution. As our ‘codebook’ expands and changes, the potential for misunderstanding—what Shannon would call ‘noise’ in the channel—increases. This is why your grandfather might be baffled when you describe something as ‘fire,’ or why you might need to clarify whether you mean ‘cool’ temperature or ‘cool’ approval.

Understanding language through Shannon’s lens reminds us that communication is a cooperative endeavor. It’s not just about the words we use, but the shared understanding we construct around them.

The Antimatter Principle: A New Lexicon for Work

Enter the Antimatter Principle, a fascinating reframing of business and tech vocabulary through the lens of human needs. This approach offers a refreshingly simple vocabulary for discussing complex concepts in business and technology.

Reframing Common Terms

The Antimatter Principle redefines many common terms through the lens of meeting people’s needs. For instance:

Success becomes “meeting folks’ needs, in aggregate, without undermining other folks’ needs”.
Productivity is redefined as “the ratio of ‘folks’ needs met’ to ‘folks’ needs sacrificed'”.
Quality is seen as “the degree to which some specific person’s needs are being (or have been) met”.

This overhaul of vocabulary encourages us to think more deeply about the human impact of our work and decisions.

From Methodologies to Needs

Even well-known approaches are reframed in terms of needs:

Agile is described as “one particular set of strategies for attending to folks’ needs”.
Lean and Waterfall are similarly defined, emphasising that each approach is ultimately about meeting people’s needs, in different ways.

This perspective reminds us that regardless of our chosen approach, the ultimate goal is to satisfy folks’ needs effectively.

The Generation Gap: When LOL Means Lots of Love

As our lexicon evolves, it creates fascinating – and sometimes frustrating – generational divides. To a teenager, ‘sick’ is a compliment, ‘cap’ means lie, and sliding into DMs has nothing to do with baseball.

These linguistic leaps can leave older generations feeling like they need a translator for their own language. But perhaps that’s the beauty of it all – language keeps us on our toes, forever learning, forever young.

Embracing the Chaos: The Joy of Linguistic Evolution

So, what’s a poor confused soul to do in this linguistic maelstrom?

Every new term, every new concept, every shift in meaning, is a testament to our incredible ability to adapt, to express new ideas, to see the world in fresh ways. From the technical jargon of the 70s to the meme-speak of today, from the precise vocabulary of science to the fluid language of gender identity, our evolving lexicon reflects our growing, changing, endlessly fascinating world.

So the next time you stumble over a new piece of jargon, or find yourself reaching for Urban Dictionary to decode your teenager’s texts, remember: you’re not just learning new words. You’re participating in the grand, ongoing experiment of human communication and understanding.

And that, my friends, is pretty darn amazing. No matter what words we use to describe it.

The Transformative Power of a Simple Question in Organisational Psychotherapy

September 19, 2024

Article, Dialogue, Empathy, Language, Listening, Organisational Therapy, Psychotherapy, Rightshifting

Leave a comment

The Transformative Power of a Simple Question in Organisational Psychotherapy

Introduction: A Gateway to Workplace Transformation

In the practice of Organisational Psychotherapy (OP), where the focus is on elevating the quality of life for every individual within an organisation, one question stands as a beacon of change: “What would you like to have happen?” This seemingly straightforward inquiry serves as a powerful catalyst, unlocking doors to profound insights and transformative shifts in workplace dynamics.

The Evolution of a Powerful Query

From Therapy to Organisational Change

Rooted in therapeutic approaches like Solution-Focused Brief Therapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, this question has found a new home in OP. It marks a shift to positive approaches that focus on overall well-being at work.

The Psychological Mechanics: Why This Question Resonates

Crafting a Vision of The Ideal Workplace

By prompting individuals to articulate their ideal scenarios, this question gently guides them away from problem-focused thinking. It’s not just about identifying issues; it’s about eliciting a vivid, shared picture of a workplace where everyone thrives.

Empowerment Through Imagination

The question subtly implies that change is not only possible but within reach. It places the brush in the hands of the employees, allowing them to paint their own canvas of workplace satisfaction.

Unearthing Hidden Aspirations

Often, the most brilliant ideas for improving workplace culture lie dormant in the minds of employees. This question acts as a gentle excavator, bringing these treasures to the surface where they can be examined and potentially implemented.

Surfacing Unvoiced Dissonance

Many times in an organisation, different folks will have different perspective on the kind of future ideal they each have in mind. Asking the question in group settings invites folks to shares their differing assumptions and beliefs, and maybe move towards a more common shared perspective.

Practical Implementations: From Theory to Practice

Revolutionising Team Dynamics

Imagine starting every team meeting with this question. It sets a tone of possibility and collaboration, steering discussions towards constructive outcomes and shared visions.

Transforming One-on-One Interactions

In individual sessions, this question becomes a compass, helping employees navigate their personal and professional aspirations within the larger organisational needsscape.

A New Approach to Conflict Resolution

When tensions arise, this question can act as a bridge, shifting the focus from past grievances to future harmony. It encourages parties to envision a shared positive outcome, fostering collaboration rather than competition.

Navigating Challenges: When the Question Meets Resistance

Dealing with Vague or Seemingly Unrealistic Responses

Not everyone can immediately articulate a clear vision. Here, the skill lies in asking gentle follow-up questions, helping individuals refine their thoughts and translate abstract desires into concrete possibilities.

Overcoming the Inertia of Cynicism

In environments where past attempts at change have failed, cynicism can be a formidable barrier. Patience, coupled with small, visible wins, can gradually erode this resistance, reigniting belief in the possibility of positive change.

The Antimatter Principle: A Deeper Dive

“What do you need to have happen?”

This alternative framing, rooted in the Antimatter Principle, shifts the focus from wants to fundamental needs. While powerful, it’s a tool to be used judiciously.

The Challenge of Needs-Based Inquiry

Directly asking about needs can sometimes lead to cognitive roadblocks. Many individuals haven’t consciously explored their – let alone others’ – core needs, especially in a work context. This is why starting with “like to have happen” often proves more effective as an opening.

A Strategic Progression

By beginning with desires and gradually transitioning to needs, we create a safer space for deeper exploration. This progression allows individuals to peel back layers of surface wants to reveal the bedrock of true needs.

Conclusion: The Ripple Effect of a Simple Question

In the grand tapestry of Organisational Psychotherapy, “What would you like to have happen?” is not just a question; it’s a philosophy. It embodies the belief that within every individual and group lies the seed of positive change. By nurturing these seeds through thoughtful inquiry, we can cultivate workplaces that don’t just function, but flourish – environments where every person feels valued, heard, and empowered to contribute to the collective well-being.An where it’s more likely that folks’ needs will get attended to.

As practitioners, leaders, or simply as colleagues, we hold the power to initiate transformation with this simple yet profound question. In doing so, we don’t just change conversations; we change cultures, and ultimately, we change lives.

Pronouncing “Quintessence”

January 27, 2024

Article, Business, Improvement, Language, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Productivity, Quintessence, Software development

Leave a comment

Pronouncing “Quintessence”

If you’ve come across the word “quintessence” while reading English texts, you may have wondered about the correct pronunciation and actual meaning of this rather unusual word. As a non-native speaker, the pronunciation can seem tricky at first. Read on for a quick guide on how to say “quintessence” properly and what this interesting word signifies.

Breaking Down the Pronunciation

Quintessence is pronounced “kwin-tess-uhns” in British English. Let’s look at each syllable:

“Quin”: The “qu” sounds like a hard “c” or “k”, as in words like “queen” or “quick”. Say the “kwin” syllable.

“Tes”: This syllable rhymes with words like “test” or “best”. Say “tess”.

“Ence”: Here the “e” becomes a schwa sound – the neutral “uh”. Think words like “enhance”, and say the schwa “uh” sound.

Put together, the full pronunciation is: kwin-tess-uhns. The stress is on the second syllable, “tess”. Say the word a few times out loud, stressing that middle portion, to get comfortable with the pronunciation.

Alternatively, you might choose to pronounce it “quint” + essence”.

The Meaning of Quintessence

So now that you know how to say it properly in your best spoken English accent, what does “quintessence” actually mean? Quintessence signifies the purest, most perfect or concentrated essence of something. For example, you could describe a breathtaking landscape as “the quintessence of natural beauty”. Or for an organisation that has everything sorted, all its ducks lined up, and firing on all cylinders, we might choose to call that a “Quintessential organisation”.

Etymology

The word originates from medieval philosophy, derived from the Latin “quinta essentia”, meaning the “fifth essence“. This referred to what was thought to be the pure substance making up heavenly bodies, beyond the four basic earthly elements of fire, water, air and earth.

In Modern Physics

In modern physics, “quintessence” refers to a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Based on astronomical observations, scientists have determined that some unknown form of energy, termed “dark energy,” makes up about 68% of all the energy in the observable universe. This mysterious dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up over time. To explain this phenomenon, physicists have proposed that quintessence – an extremely light and slowly-varying scalar field – may account for the observed behavior of dark energy and the accelerating cosmic expansion. Quintessence would have negative pressure, offsetting normal attractive gravity and driving galaxies apart at an ever-faster rate. If confirmed, the quintessence scalar field would be the “fifth element” driving cosmology, alongside ordinary and dark matter. Though still unproven, quintessence remains a leading contender for explaining one of the biggest mysteries in modern physics and astronomy. Further experiments and astrophysical observations may shed more light on this proposed fifth essence permeating the universe.

Summary

So next time you come across this unique word, you’ll know the proper English pronunciation and understand its meaning related to a pure, perfect embodiment of something. With your new knowledge, use “quintessence” to impress your English friends and teachers!

Chatbots and Unmet Needs

September 28, 2023

AI, Antimatter principle, Article, Chatbots, Language, Listening, Needs, Organisational effectiveness

Leave a comment

Chatbots and Unmet Needs

What Can Chatbots Really Do?

Chatbots aren’t just virtual customer service agents that can help you book a table at a restaurant. They’re becoming intelligent interfaces capable of nuanced interactions. And yes, they can help uncover and discover the unmet needs of not just customers, but all those who matter in an organisational setting.

Who Are the Folks That Matter?

Before diving into the potential of chatbots, it’s helpful to identify the people whose needs we aim to understand. In most organisations, this includes employees, management, shareholders, regulators, and of course, customers.

How Do Chatbots Operate Without Analytics?

While it’s easy to assume that data analytics play a key role in this process, chatbots can provide valuable insights without delving too much into data sets. The focus here is on real-time interaction, intuitive questioning and active listening, which form the methods by which chatbots can make a significant impact.

Unearthing Employee Needs

Employees often have concerns and needs that go unexpressed. Whether it’s about workload, work-life balance, or specific job functions, these issues sometimes remain buried. Chatbots provide an anonymous platform where employees can voice their needs without the fear of judgement. The direct feedback is not only candid but also immediate, bypassing the red tape that often comes with traditional methods of internal communication.

What’s in It for Management?

Management teams also have a lot to gain. From understanding organisational dynamics to gauging employee morale, chatbots can ask the right questions that elicit actionable responses. Here too, methods like focused questioning make these bots valuable assets in decision-making processes.

Can Shareholders Benefit?

Certainly. Shareholders often seek insights into an organisation’s operations, financial health, and future direction. Although not a substitute for comprehensive reports, chatbots can provide immediate, digestible information that answers shareholders’ queries effectively. This immediate line of communication can help identify needs that may otherwise remain hidden.

Anticipating Customer Needs

We can’t overlook the role of chatbots in understanding and even anticipating customers’ needs. Unlike traditional methods that may rely on extensive data analysis, chatbots engage in real-time dialogue. These conversations can reveal not just stated needs but also anticipate latent needs that the customer might not even be aware of.

What’s Next?

As organisations adopt more sophisticated technology, the capabilities of chatbots are likely to expand. However, their primary function remains rooted in communication. Whether it’s for employees, management, shareholders, regulators or customers, chatbots offer a unique way of uncovering unmet needs without relying heavily on analytics or extensive research. It’s all about asking the right questions and listening—something that chatbots are getting increasingly good at.

The Impact of Programming Language on Thoughts and Behaviors in the Workplace

January 30, 2023

Article, Language, Nonviolence, Nonviolent Communication

Leave a comment

The Impact of Programming Language on Thoughts and Behaviors in the Workplace

Linguistic Relativity is the idea that language shapes the way we think. In programming, the imperative style is widely used in which instructions are given to the computer. The immersion in imperative communication via programming languages raises the question of whether this influences the programmer’s thinking and contributes to the preservation of command-and-control behavior in organisations. The use of “should” in modern Behavior Driven Development (BDD) is an example of rampant imperativism in language.

E-Prime is a modified form English proposed by D. David Bourland to reduce misunderstandings and conflicts. The idea of modifying language to improve thinking is not new.

The concept of a Nonviolent Programming language based on the Four Steps of Nonviolent Communication is an intriguing one. It raises the question of what a Nonviolent Programming language would look like and feel like to use and whether it would have knock-on advantages for Nonviolent BDD. If Gandhi, for example, had been a programmer instead of a lawyer, what would his code have looked like? If he had been immersed in programming languages for 40 hours a week, would he have held the same views on non-violence?

Adopting a Nonviolent Programming language and style could have positive implications for our personal and work-related communication, as seen through the lens of Linguistic Relativity. Spending 40 hours a week on Nonviolent Programming could contribute to the health and well-being of our human dialogues and personal interactions.

Quintessential Morons

July 2, 2022

Article, Coaching, Culture change, Language, Psychology

Leave a comment

Quintessential Morons

Quintessential morons are not those folks with a shortfall in intellect, but those folks with a shortfall in awareness of the limitations and boundaries of their personal world view.

The latter group are not open to changing themselves because they remain unaware of the need for, and benefits to themselves and others of, personal change.

The world is stuffed full of quintessential morons.

Chances are, you’re one too.

– Bob

The Way The Play Plays

May 6, 2022

Alien tech, Article, Culture change, Language, Play, Quintessence

Leave a comment

The Way The Play Plays

Play is for adults, too

John Seddon regularly uses the phrase “the way the work works” in referring to the “system” or “processes” that actually get followed within organisations. In contrast to the way “processes” or “the system” describe how the work should work (but rarely bears any relation).

For organisations such as The Quintessential Group, where play’s the thing, “work” has become a term, and an idea, that no longer has much relevance. The phrase “the way the work works” serves as one more reinforcement of that outmoded idea.

So we’ve chosen to replace the phrase “the way the work works” with the phrase “the way the play plays”. Which, although poorer grammar, helps us train ourselves to expunge the word – and idea – of “work” from our consciousness.

A Key to Culture Change

March 29, 2022

Culture change, Language, Learning, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence

Leave a comment

A Key to Culture Change

A long time ago (2012) I wrote

‘Whorfianism of the third kind’ proposes that language is ‘a key to culture’

(You might also like to read the full post wherein this appeared).

Which is to propose that the language we use, and the vocabulary we possess, influences and constrains the way we think. That if we lack words for certain concepts, then these concepts are inaccessible to and inexpressible by us.

Which in turn suggests that culture change, involving as it does discovering and adopting new terms, concepts, and the words to describe and label them, necessitates we acquire new language and new vocabulary.

I suspect Clean Language also has some relevance and utility here.

How does the phenomenon of Linguistic Relativity relate to your own experiences?

– Bob

The Hidden Language of Control: How Our Words Reveal Our Deepest Compulsion

The Command Impulse: When Every Sentence Becomes a Directive

The Certainty Addiction: How We Weaponise ‘Obviously’ and ‘Clearly’

The Moral Authority Gambit: When Ethics Becomes Coercion

Conditional Control: The ‘If-Then’ Manipulation

The Expertise Claim: How ‘I Know’ Becomes ‘You Must’

The Resistance to ‘I Don’t Know’

The Deep Psychology of Linguistic Control

The Liberation in Linguistic Honesty

Conclusion: The Words That Set Us Free

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

The Vocabulary Problem

Update

The Problem with Words

My Blogging Frustrations

The Roots of Problematic Language

An Alternative Framework: The Antimatter Principle

The Updated Vocabulary

The Hierarchical Terms (New Additions – For Reference Only)

The Practical Impact of Language Shifts

Building Your Own Coherent Vocabulary

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Slippery, Tricksy Things: Why Words Invite More Scepticism

The Daily Dance of Miscommunication

How Words Shape What We See

When the Stakes Are High

The Digital Amplification

Orwell’s Warning: When Words Control Thought

Cultivating Linguistic Humility

The Stories We Tell Ourselves

Navigating the Treacherous Waters

The Paradox of This Very Essay

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

What We Learn When People Talk Out of Their Arses

Seven Lessons from Confident Arse Gabblers

Lesson 1: Confidence Acts Like a Superpower (For Better or Worse)

Lesson 2: Our Brains Crave Simple Stories

Lesson 3: Intellectual Humility Appears Rare and Valuable

Lesson 4: Questions Matter More Than Answers

Lesson 5: Expertise Has Expiration Dates and Boundaries

Lesson 6: We All Have Blind Spots

Lesson 7: Communication Skills Matter More Than We Think

Putting It All Together

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Management Gobshites

When Management-Speak Crosses the Line

What Is a “Gobshite” in the Workplace Context?

The Buzzword Bonanza

The Impossible Triangle: Good, Fast, and Cheap

The Expertise Gap

The Human Cost

Breaking the Cycle

Conclusion

Share the joy :)

The Power of Ow

The Science Behind “Ow”

Beyond Physical Pain: Emotional Expression in the Workplace

The Cost of Suppressing Workplace “Ow” Moments

Creating Space for “Ow” in Tech Workplaces

The Balancing Act

Conclusion

Share the joy :)

Punching Your Customers in the Face Won’t Work

The Seductive Logic of Aggressive Marketing

The Marketer’s Dilemma

The Language of Force

Why This Approach Fails

The Alternative: Building Relationships

The Long Game

Share the joy :)

A Path to Better Team Communication

The Power of Communication Preferences

The Social Styles Framework Explained

A Model, Not a Box

The Four Primary Social Styles

Analytical Style