When Naming Hurts

They'd been at it for an hour, and Chuck was convinced that agreement was still out of reach. Geoff and the people from Diamond Square wanted to ship immediately and deal with any remaining problems in the field. Chuck and everyone else wanted to spend a little more time finding out how bad the problems were, and then make a more careful go/no-go decision. So the meeting was stuck.

Chuck offered an idea: "Why don't we all take a break and return at half past? Maybe get a bite to eat and if we come back refreshed, we might find a compromise."

Geoff quickly replied, "Not on your life. I've had enough dithering and stalling. Let's keep going until we decide."

By labeling Chuck's suggestion "dithering" and "stalling," Geoff hoped to devalue the idea. He used the power of naming not to advance the group's effort to resolve its differences, but to characterize Geoff's suggestion so as to devalue it. If he wins his point by attaching a one-dimensional name to the rich, open-ended tactic of taking a break, the team could be deprived of a possibly fruitful resolution of its impasse.

Abusive naming
tactics are
surprisingly commonSometimes, naming hurts.

And it's a tactic that many abuse. Over the next week, you can take an inventory of naming tactics in your organization. Once you start watching for name abuse, you'll be surprised at how common it is, and you'll be less likely to do it yourself.

Here are some typical examples of naming that can hurt.

Analysis paralysis

This name can end thinking and discussion when used like this: "Let's not get stuck in analysis paralysis." Another favorite term is "over-analysis."

Rushing and haste

By calling the resolution to act "rushing" we can halt action: "Let's not rush into this." Another form: "Let's not be so hasty."

Bureaucratic micromanaging

Labeling regulation and controls as bureaucratic micromanaging can cause an organization to abandon responsible and necessary controls. Not all controls are bureaucratic. Not all management is micromanagement.

Human capital, Human resources

By using the same name for people as we use for trucks or copy paper, we dehumanize the people. This makes it easier for us to make decisions that trouble us morally or ethically. If you call people "people" you're more likely to take your own values into account.

Labeling someone's ideas or behaviors, as Geoff did above, can be especially destructive, because we can hear the label as if it were applied to us personally, rather than to our ideas or behavior. Anger and defensiveness can follow. If you notice someone using these tactics on you, inhale, then exhale, and only then respond. Reminding yourself of your own humanity helps you forgive the namer and deflect the name.  Top    Next Issue

The article you've been reading is an archived issue of Point Lookout, my weekly newsletter. I've been publishing it since January, 2001, free to all subscribers, over the Web, and via RSS. You can help keep it free by donating either as an individual or as an organization. You'll receive in return my sincere thanks — and the comfort of knowing that you've helped to propagate insights and perspectives that can help make our workplaces a little more human-friendly. More

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

Decision-Making and the Straw Man

In project work, we often make decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes we narrow the options to a few, examine their strengths and risks, and make a choice. In our deliberations, some advocates use a technique called the Straw Man fallacy. It threatens the soundness of the decision, and its use is very common.

Hurtful Clichés: II

Much of our day-to-day conversation consists of harmless clichés: "How goes it?" or "Nice to meet you." Some other clichés aren't harmless, but they're so common that we use them without thinking. Here's Part II of a series exploring some of these clichés.

Social Safety Margins

As our personal workloads increase, we endure more stress and more time pressure. Inevitably, we have less time for the social niceties that protect us from accidentally hurting each other's feelings. When are we most at risk of incidental harm, and what can we do about it?

What Enough to Do Is Like

Most of us have had way too much to do for so long that "too much to do" has become the new normal. We've forgotten what "enough to do" feels like. Here are some reminders.

Fooling Ourselves

Humans have impressive abilities to convince themselves of things that are false. One explanation for this behavior is the theory of cognitive dissonance.

See also Emotions at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings

Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.

And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I

Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIlZgAYRLvttGgdjgner@ChacfyYDYuEXPcbwZJsioCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented 6:00 PM June 29 (Eastern Time), Monthly Webinar, Technobility Webinar Series. You can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.