The state of being conscious has eluded definition, and certainly no one knows how it “emerges” from neurological systems. However, we do know that our consciousness is closely connected to the human mind’s propensity for symbolic representation of our experience, i.e., language. Language includes words, of course, but it also encompasses the language of numbers, imagery, facial expression, gestures and actions. I’d like to talk about just the words at the moment.
It’s been shown that the specific language we think in (not just speak) has a physical effect on the way our brain processes thought. For example, if the language employed places the modifying adjective after the subject noun, the mental process is to first hold a place for the subject, pause in evaluating its qualities, then apply the modifying descriptor. This causes consciousness to focus first on the essence of the subject that is independent of any other modifying descriptor, such as its color. “Vino blanco” translates literally to “wine, white”.
In English, the modifying adjective appears before the subject noun, e.g., “white wine”. Therefore, the first thing that takes priority is the color of the wine, not the wine itself. Any unconscious associations, including emotional connotation, that may have specific meaning for the speaker related to the color will take precedence over the importance in meaning of the subject itself, i.e., wine. The difference in consciousness is therefore that meaning and priority is more about the assigned qualities and characteristics of something, rather than on the inherent elements of the thing being described. Some researchers posit that English tends to focus on the more superficial elements of thoughts and messaging, as compared to Spanish, which focuses first on the underlying, fundamental elements that are less changeable, or perhaps even permanent. The structure of language literally hard-wires the brain to a certain approach to conscious perception that can affect how the human thinks and therefore acts.
If that seems logical to you, then let’s go a step further and think about the actual words we use in communication, and how those words affect our consciousness, our interpretation of the world, and our actions. Nowhere is this dynamic more visible than in the world of corporations. Business language is comprised of terms and phrases that do not appear in other parts of our lives. And they greatly affect how people think in those environments. Let me take just one term, to illustrate the effects. Let’s talk about “C-suite”.
“C-suite” means the metaphorical location that contains the people who hold leadership roles in a company that have the highest level of authority and accountability. It means all the jobs that have a “Chief” in the title, such as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. These are the most common with a long history. In the last decade or two, other “C-suite” roles have emerged: Chief Development Officer, Chief Human Resources Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, etc. Many professional fields have actively lobbied to assign the “Chief” nomenclature, thinking that by so doing the role itself might be elevated in importance (and compensation) in the corporate hierarchy. To be a “Chief” whatever, is coveted.
Now marry to the “Chief” term, the word “suite”. What is the meaning conveyed? Clearly, “suite” is a word that implies a number of rooms, opulently appointed, available only to the wealthy and powerful. “C-room” doesn’t convey the same feelings or imagery, but would be absolutely accurate. “C-wing” might be somewhere in between. By employing “C-suite”, the occupants are set apart as elites, and the people using the term ally themselves with that same social stratum, elevating themselves to the elite category. The associated effect is to separate from the “lower” categories of people in the organization and in society at large, whose roles reside in a room at Motel 6.
While the people who hold “C-suite” jobs, and those who use the term routinely, are happy to do so for the perceived positive self-image that results, they don’t realize how the term damages their relationships with other people around them. Within a company, all the people who are not in the “C-suite” hear the term and feel left out, cynical and disconnected. In one company where I worked, as a professional well down the ladder, the “rank and file” (as we were referred to; no one in the “rank and file” would ever use the term to describe themselves) referred to the “C-suite” as the “Head Shed”. It was reverse elitism, indicating that the people in the leadership roles didn’t actually do real work. In one sense, that is an accurate view.
The debate about and the reality of socioeconomic inequality rising is directly correlated to the language we use. Simply by peppering one’s conversations with such terms as “C-suite”, a person can materially impact the sense of inequality of both the speaker (who rises to the elite level) and the listeners (who may feel assigned to the non-elite category). Another relevant finding in the research about personal sense of optimism and contentment is that the absolute level of economic opportunity or quality of life is not a determinant of psychological positivism. We view our state in life relative to others, not in absolutes. When others seem to rise as we feel we are staying the same or even going backwards, our experience of life grows more negative and pessimistic.
Business leaders who care about creating an organization of highly engaged, strongly performing, long-tenured people who enjoy what they do daily would be well-served to carefully examine the language they use. Just repeating what is conventional or customary can have significantly negative effects on the culture of a company. Words are very, very important.
Another term with negative cultural consequences is “human capital”. Think of the message being sent…