What kind of language now constitutes discrimination? A recent tribunal decided that a manager describing his female colleague as “sour and bitter” could be considered sex discrimination.

The context is obviously what matters, and in this case, involving staff at Cambridgeshire County Council, the male manager had made a series of remarks about “that woman”, about her clothes (“revolting”) and the state of mental health (she should “see a psychiatrist”). The tribunal ruling has highlighted how careless use of language and throwaway remarks — unwelcome comments that come with “gendered undertones” — can be interpreted as a form of sexual harassment. In this case it was also emphasised that the feelings of the ‘victim’ were what mattered, and not just the intentions of the manager.

The Changing Sensitivities Around Workplace Language

The use of language in the workplace has become loaded and sensitised, more likely to be recorded in digital forms, more open to interpretation and criticism. We have to be saying the ‘right’ thing. The issue was highlighted at the CIPD Annual Conference, where speaker Susie Dent, author and lexicographer, pointed to how attitudes to workplace language was changing: for example, how the use of the word “ambitious” has gained negative connotations, especially when used to refer to a female employee, that it often came with associations of arrogance.

At the same time, Susie Dent also warned about the effects of “linguistic paralysis”. There was a need to choose words carefully in workplace emails and conversations generally, but it could mean people deciding not to risk saying anything at all, a barrier to openness and communications generally. The use of generative AI was also a problem, because it was regurgitation of jargon and stock phrases, a limit on inclusivity and diversity (look out for the tell-tale signs: “navigate”, “multi-faceted”, “game-changer” and “a rich tapestry”).

The Risk of Communication Breakdown

How employees come together, the relationships that give people a sense of belonging, how they motivate and organise and spark off each other are the engine of workplaces, how anything gets done. What makes work human and rewarding and provides a sense of purpose and community. So strangled communications, when fear and anxiety and suspicion over what words can be used, what can and can’t possibly be said, make openness and straightforward honesty difficult.

Staff at all levels need support in learning how to talk together, work together and deal with differences better. We’ve seen the rise and inclusion of emotional intelligence in the modern manager toolkit, now HR need to be thinking more about stocks of conversation skills, equipping more people to deal with the inevitable challenges of work. Because we’re not the capable communicators we think we are.

Why We Struggle with Workplace Conversations

Despite more than a hundred years of office working, staff in organisations in general still struggle to have ‘good’ conversations — the kinds that are genuinely open, reasonable, take other people’s needs into account and aren’t based around a fear of disagreement or challenge. Most often we opt for the route of least resistance, until there’s a serious problem, and then come the flashes of anger and a reliance on our authority and formal processes.

Conversations affected by power politics and reticence have hidden consequences: they lead to secrecy, mistrustful relationships, poor decision-making, as well as the more formal consequences of festering grievances, conflict and the potential for disciplinary cases and tribunals. Better skills mean all those inevitable workplace disagreements and differences in opinion and personality can be dealt with lightly, through open conversations that are based on trust.

The Need for Conversational Integrity

To reach this stage, managers and staff need ‘Conversational Integrity’ — something which can be learnt and practiced — until no-one ever feels as if their problems are unimportant or unsolvable, there’s always a constructive way to reach a resolution.

Managers need to structure their communications and relationships with staff in ways that provide an important element of time, to mitigate against knee-jerk reactions and voicing of instant opinions. That’s why the face-to-face method needs to be used as much as possible. They provide a useful series of pauses to arrange and set up and deliver, ensuring time for reflection and a context where thought and behaviour will be different. And in support of this approach there needs to be work on ensuring people understand that face-to-face doesn’t just mean bad news.

Teams work best when people don’t just do as they’re told: every member plays a full part, feeling able to take as much responsibility and contribute as much as the lead manager. Teams become more creative, motivated and engaged. This requires the development of a number of interlocking skills in the manager and in the team: building rapport, active listening, emotional intelligence, and managing difficult conversations.

People can admit their mistakes, discuss challenges openly, rather than keeping problems bottled up, leading naturally to more learning, better decision-making, and constant support for learning and development – rather than relying on a once a year appraisal.

Photo by Jopwell