By Liz Doig, MD Wordtree
The FT published an opinion piece recently, in which the author called on the UN General Assembly to come up with a better way of describing “rules-based international order”.
Tim Garton Ash, a professor of European Studies at Oxford University, said the expression was used so often it now has its own acronym in British government documents – “the RBIS”.
The problem with this horrendously boring use of language, said Professor Garton Ash, is that it doesn’t make the heart beat faster. And this makes it harder to connect with an idea or concept. In other words, without emotional connection, ideas are dry, dull and easy to ignore.
The professor expressed concern that populists are very good at using emotive language – which feels right and real to many people, even when it’s a pack of lies.
In short: engaging, easy-to-understand messages that tell a story, are always more successful – even if they’re inaccurate. Meanwhile, boring messages – even if they’re absolutely accurate – slide off the brain like a fried egg off Teflon.
Professor Garton Ash’s argument (and I’m precising here) was this: Wouldn’t it be great if we started telling accurate, truthful stories in engaging, story-driven ways?
Then at the end of a well-reasoned opinion piece, written by a highly-qualified observer, came a slew of disappointing, though not surprising, comments from disgruntled readers:
- The English language can be better than this!
- Why should we dumb down?
- This is stooping to the lowest common denominator…
FT readers (or at least those with the time and inclination to comment), seemed to be saying that standards needed to be upheld. And that making ideas, concepts and arguments accessible was just dumbing down – and who in their right mind would want to do that?
There are many reasons that high achievers feel uncomfortable about communicating in accessible ways. These are some of the situations I’ve come across over the years – and some of the things I think we can do to make ideas more engaging…
Language is still seen as an indicator of class
Language – though most people I talk to call it “English” – is seen as a symbol of attainment and standing. So if you know how to use “whom” and strictly forbid the use of a conjunction at the start of a sentence – this is seen to signify being “better”.
Some senior decision makers refer to distant English classes as evidence for what is “right” – in a way that they would never do if the subject under discussion was economics or physics. The latter are subjects which are allowed to evolve. The English language is not.
I think this is because for some people, their “standard” of English is a part of what gives them worth. It’s a subliminal form of snobbery. If their language became more accessible, they feel they would somehow lessen themselves.
Emotion is seen as having no place in business
Then there are other execs who are wary of emotion. Despite an ever-increasing body of evidence to the contrary, these are people who believe that their decision-making is rational, independent and could not possibly be swayed by something as trivial as emotion. And in fairness, they probably attended business school at a time when this thinking was current.
I sometimes think there is some unconscious sexism built into this way of thinking too. I’ve met a few senior decision-makers who label anger and borderline bullying as “drive” – but who think that getting upset, for example, is unprofessional. The correlation with language is that strident messaging is often acceptable, but softer, more supportive language is not.
There’s a sense in some organisations that leadership – and the audiences these companies serve – are “beyond” emotion. And this makes them favour language that reads like a dry lab report. They then wonder why a brand pushing an inferior product with more engaging language is performing better than they are.
There’s a fear of being seen as uneducated
Anyone who’s ever had a university or business school essay returned to them with glowering comments about the text being “too journalistic” (ie, readable) knows the shame of being judged by your language.
This misgiving follows people into the workplace. For sure, some decision-makers tell us, we could make this easier to understand. But our target audience is educated and B2B – surely they’d think less of us if we dumbed our language down?
Being afraid of having potential clients think less of you because you make their lives easier is more common than you might think. We’ve spent a lot of time over the years sharing examples of work from other companies and getting feedback from customers and stakeholders – to show evidence that clearer, more emotional messaging is more effective.
There’s a fear of “dumbing down”
It’s interesting that “dumbing down” is, in itself, a phrase that makes a complex concept more accessible. But ignoring this, some organisations simply don’t want to be seen as the dunderheads in the class.
“Dumbing down” means making subject matter simplistic. Or in other words, giving sound-bitey explanations that sound good but that aren’t quite accurate. And this is a legitimate concern. Accuracy is important.
However, “simple” is not the same as “simplistic”. If you’re working with good enough writers and communicators, you ought to be able to explain anything in simple terms, without compromising accuracy or things like regulatory compliance.
But the ability to do this is rare – so many decision-makers see “simple”, and immediately assume “simplistic” and want to get rid of it.
“Story” is seen as childish
Stories are a human mechanism for conveying information. They allow us to hold onto in-depth details in a way that we could not if we simply had a list to read from. Stories are viral too – we share them and they’re repeated again and again.
These features make them powerful intangible assets for businesses – in building everything from brand awareness to culture. And, as this article illustrates, even in helping technology deployments happen seamlessly.
Yet the word “story” feels childish and elementary. We often use the word “narrative” instead. But it still sometimes doesn’t quite cut the mustard with decision-makers who want to make sales rather than faff around with flighty stuff like brand and marketing.
So where does this leave us?
Language has the potential to be a powerful tool for business. It can shape thinking, it can engage, it can make ideas viral and it can boost acceptance and compliance. But it’s not seen as a core function of business. It’s still more of a “nice to have” than a “business critical” skill.
I’d love to see a day when the Chief Language Office works across teams and departments, supercharging all efforts with brand-aligned language. But we’re a very long way from this happening.
So in the short term, we will carry on showing organisations that emotion and engagement boost productivity and revenues. And that it’s just as possible to dumb up as it is to dumb down.
You might find these posts interesting too:
Commercial audiences don’t want to read university essays