TL;DR:
Avoid these word gremlins:
Utilize
Learnings
Centering
Deeply
Whole Self
New Heights
Not too long, definitely want to read:
There was once a writer in the forest of words. She set off on her path determined to write about her organization’s work in a way that sounded good and made sense. She was making progress when all the sudden—gah! Our writer found herself trapped by the spirits of “nonprofit speak” and started reaching for vague, sanitized, overused, ill-defined, and partisan phrases to communicate her thoughts.
This is a tale as old as modern time.
Fortunately, this writer’s fate need not be ours. All it takes to defend against the forest’s shadow forces is some attention. By thinking critically about the words and phrases we use and opting for those that are clear, precise, and devoid of political affiliation, we can break the spell of nonprofit speak and strengthen our messages to the benefit of our organizations and the people they serve.
So, please, my fellow wordsmiths, steady your quills and guard yourself against:
Words that sanitize.
For years, I have hated the word “utilize.” I complain about it so consistently that my husband will now correct people when “utilize” is uttered in my presence. I wish people would simply use “use”. It sounds better and its meaning is clear.
Even so, I could never quite put my finger on why “utilize” caused me so much agony. That is until I read a post called “On Corpspeak” by Good Reason’s Andre Cooper. He explains that people working in the corporate world choose certain words because they sound entirely neutral, devoid of any hint of negativity.
For example, instead of using the word “lessons” to describe things someone has learned, the corporate world (and I would add the nonprofit world) now favors “learnings.” That’s because, Cooper argues, “lessons” implies there may have been a mistake that someone learned from.
“Learnings has none of that baggage. As always, it sounds nice and neutral, like the knowledge just appeared out of thin air and floated into your mind. This difference is *so subtle*. Learnings and lessons have the same definition. It’s just a difference in connotation. Corpspeak words are pod-people versions of their everyday equivalents: outwardly the same but stripped of any soul.”
This is what utilize does, too. It takes an otherwise human-sounding verb and makes it sound robotic. Words that sanitize make us sound less human, which makes it harder to connect with human audiences.
Words that are used by only one political party.
I do not have evidence for what I am about to say next, I have only my own observations to stand on. That said, I have been observing the ways in which liberal-leaning organizations have been using this word for years and I feel confident enough in what I have witnessed to write about it. Perhaps, once I point it out, you will notice it, too.
Only liberal-leaning organizations use “center” as a verb.
For example, “we are committed to centering the knowledge of marginalized communities” or “we need to center the stories of the individuals most impacted.”
There is nothing wrong with this. English is a fluid language, and it is possible that “center” used in this way becomes part of the wider vernacular. But for now, it is used only in certain spaces and has therefore become associated with the values and political beliefs of those spaces.
This is not a problem if your current and future audiences hold your same worldview. But so much of the writing I see in the nonprofit sector is about reaching more people and building more bridges. We cannot afford to hold people at bay with in-group word choice, however unintentional. Words that are used by only one political party exclude rather than welcome.
Words that have become fluff.
I am talking about words like “deeply.” I see “deeply” everywhere. For example, “this work is deeply important” or “he is deeply committed to the future of our community.”
But if we are being honest with ourselves, I think we all know that “deeply” is but a more poetic version of “very,” a word many of us agree is unnecessary.
And I get it. What we are writing about matters a lot. We want to convey that someone does truly care about their work or has really gone out of their way to do something great. “Deeply” so often makes emotional sense.
Even so, allow me to suggest we reprise that writing lesson of old and cut out the fluff. We don’t need to qualify everything. Instead, we can trust the words surrounding “deeply” to stand for themselves. Words that don’t need to be there dilute the power of the words around them.
Words that beg a definition.
If I haven’t completely offended you by now, I may lose you with this one. We need to talk about “whole self.”
“Whole self” is one of those terms that people may be unfamiliar with (see: political affiliations) or using slightly differently than the person next to them.
I read a lot of articles about the value of “bringing your whole self to work”. I also read a lot about how workers are increasingly prioritizing their home lives, preferring to draw better boundaries between work and family.
It is clear to me then that there is debate over what it is we mean by “whole self.” Does it mean wearing one’s many hats—professional, parent, yoga instructor, what have you—simultaneously? Does it mean being transparent with what is going on in your personal life at work even at the risk of oversharing? Where is the line?
Given the uncertainty, I recommend pairing “whole self” with a brief definition or example that illustrates your point. For instance: “We want you to bring your whole self to this program. That means how you are feeling physically and mentally should influence what you choose to participate in or not.” Words that have no common definition only serve their purpose if they come with added clarity.
Words that don’t mean anything.
The temptation that is “new heights”!
A lot of the missions set forth by nonprofit organizations are intangible and hard to quantify. Us writers can therefore be tempted to deploy vague aspirational phrases that sound good but don’t mean anything. “New heights” is one such phrase.
Who among us has not wanted to write about “taking our work to new heights”? I used to use this term until I had a boss that forbade it. Now, whenever I feel myself wanting to reach for it, I am forced to think of something more concrete. It’s a curse, but a good one. Words that don’t mean anything do our work a disservice.
BONUS: The shadow forces strike again...
From an October 2022 job posting:
"Strategically and consultatively support the internal communications efforts of leadership and in-business teams at the enterprise level."
Consultatively! Stay safe out there, folks…