Employee Engagement. Corporate Culture.
Those two phrases have spawned countless business consulting companies, surveys, interventions and programs. A ton of energy focused on the search for The Holy Grail of business 2.0 – engaged employees working in a culture that respects the individual and provides an environment for autonomy, mastery and purpose without the shackles of 19th century business theory like rewards and incentives.
Reading the blogosphere and the business press you’d think that creating a 2.0 enterprise would be hard work and a lot of changes.
I’m here to tell you maybe not.
Here’s a very simple and easy way to impact your culture and ultimately your engagement.
Watch What You Say
Take a week or so and listen to how different departments talk about and with other departments. Pay close attention to the words they use to describe the department and the people. Just take note of them for now. If your experience is anything like mine, there will be a few words the crop up on a regular basis. In my own past the IT department (and HR) seemed to have the most “negative” words associated with them. From unresponsive, to dismissive, to downright mean. Now, I’ll admit there are many times those words probably fit well. But here’s the point. Using those words have a profound effect on others who hear those words. You (and your compatriots) are contributing to a negative culture and lower employee engagement simply by using those words.
Some Evidence
I picked this up from The Situationist – a recap of a study done in 1999 to test the impact and power of suggestion has on people. To recap the recap:
A group of college students expected to help train another group of students from a nearby college by collectively shocking them when they erred on the task.
The participants were “allowed” to overhear one of the assistants tell the experimenter one of three phrases–Neutral: “The subjects from the other school are here.” Humanized: “The subjects from the other school are here; they seem ‘nice.’” Dehumanized: “The subjects from the other school are here, they seem like ‘animals.’”
That was all the “shockers” ever saw or heard. Nothing else colored their opinion of the other students - they never saw them or interacted with them during the experiment other than to administer "shocks."
Initially, the planting of the suggestion options didn't have an effect on how much the students shocked their subjects, but as the study continued the effect was major. Those, who were exposed to the word "animals" progressively elevated their shock levels over each trial after the first, significantly more than the neutral control. Those that overheard "they seem nice" showed aggression significantly below the level of the neutral phrasing.
The upshot from the research is that by calling the group “animals” enabled participants to become morally disengaged, to activate a set of psychological mechanisms that minimized the evil of their deeds, while justifying it in a variety of ways.
Think about that in your organization. How many times do you label a group, department team? How often do you hear others refer to a division in a negative tone or with negative words? Does that simple word or phrase give otherwise good people "permission" to act differently? Do you end up creating a negative relationship simply because others overheard your comments?
Phrases and words may seem simple and harmless but they can create a situation that enable good people to behave differently – more negatively – toward others.
That isn’t engagement. That isn’t a culture of inclusion and success.
Before you spend a ton of money on an Employee Engagement Initiative – just teach people to use better words.
A simple word can have a big impact.

Thank you for this Paul! I read it and decided to write a post on it for my own blog:
http://christian-fey.com/communication/watch-your-mouth-people-are-listening/
It's amazing how quickly some slightly unkind words can turn into outward hatred towards your fellow **people**!
Posted by: Christian Fey | January 12, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Thank Christian. Appreciate the kind words. I knew that bad-mouthing people influenced their opinion. I just didn't realize it could be a single word or phrase. It just goes to show how important even the smallest bit of negative (or perceived) negative press can be.
It does beg the question on how best to deliver negative comments. I guess there would b be a difference between ad hominem attacks and simple criticism.
Posted by: Paul Hebert | January 12, 2011 at 01:19 PM
I think you're right about the difference between ad hominem attacks vs. simple criticism. In my view, there is one clear distinction: Are you pointing out a *specific* failure (criticism), or are you generalizing and pointing fingers (attack)? I think that as long as you are on task and not personally attacking that individual, you're in the criticism realm, while the second you turn it into something like "well, they're stupid then," you've moved into the attack posture. Hmmm I hear another blog post in my head.... lol
Posted by: Christian Fey | January 12, 2011 at 06:47 PM
What an amazing post Paul! You've so concisely summarized and exemplified how easily acceptance or neutrality can turn into exclusion or judgment.
This is a fabulous reminder of the power of language. It's my first time to your blog and I most definitely look fwd to future posts.
Thank you.
Posted by: Les Mottosky | January 13, 2011 at 06:02 PM
Brilliant, Paul. And if that simple word is "thanks" -- so much the better. As the research shows, if you'll just tell me "thanks" for what I do, for how I help, I'm much more likely to help again.
I'll be referencing this in a post next week.
Posted by: Derek Irvine, Globoforce | January 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Obviously thanks is a great word to use. I just found it interesting how much we can be swayed by ONE such negative comment. Just imagine what happens in a corporate culture when there is a constant stream of negative comments about a group or division. I remember in a couple of companies I worked for how we referred to the sales team and how we referred to the programmers. No wonder we had troubles.
Thanks as always for commenting and being part of the commenting community.
Posted by: Paul Hebert | January 14, 2011 at 04:51 PM