Throughout 2016, I wrote down my musings on what it means to be a leader in an organization where you lead and manage people. As stated in the post that started this series, I have used the term manager because I have focused on mid-level managers; those individuals who spend most of their time interacting with employees, managing day-to-day activities, and leading them practically. And because of this, every manager needs to be keenly aware of the language they use and always use language of inclusion.
What is language of inclusion?
Using language of inclusion means you are not excluding anyone because of their gender, race or ethnicity, sexual preference, age, political leanings, or in the way you interact with them verbally and non-verbally. It means that whoever is in front of you, you listen to them, hear them out, include their contributions, and show them respect. It means everything you do as a manager is about including your employees and as stated by the Linguistic Society of America:
Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities...lead the way in proactively writing inclusively and avoid past pitfalls or habits that may unintentionally lead to marginalization, offense, misrepresentation, or the perpetuation of stereotypes. Stereotyping language is often not a matter of intention but of effect (2016).
And from a short, well thought out article at Forbes, "The body language of inclusion and warmth includes positive eye contact, genuine smiles, and open postures in which legs are uncrossed, and arms are held away from your body, with palms exposed or resting comfortably on the desk or conference table" (Goman, 2017).
As a manager and as a leader it is your job to include everyone within the team’s fold and and to be keenly aware of what you say, what you do, and how you are coming off to your employees.
Why is language of inclusion important?
Gone are the days of managers and leaders doing whatever they want, being inappropriate, being biased, or not choosing their word carefully; everyone is accountable (...eventually). When an institution goes through the great expense of hiring an individual, onboarding them, getting them used to policies and procedures of the organization, and spending a great deal of capital to train them, then why would a manager exclude them from being part of the team? Making sure that each individual is included in the daily work of a team and contributes substantially is just good business and it facilitates engagement with employees. Being inclusive also helps build trust with employees, and trust "is the belief or confidence that one party has in the reliability, integrity and honesty of another party. It is the expectation that the faith one places in someone else will be honored. It is also the glue that holds together any group" (Goman, 2017).
Below are a few straightforward reasons why to use language of inclusion:
Helps employee productivity (they do their job and they do it well);
Helps employee engagement (they are engaged with the institution, the team, and the manager);
Responsible use of human capital and resources (they are being paid and they use resources to get the job done) .
What happens if language of inclusion is not demonstrated and used?
If a manager does not use language of inclusion then they will exclude members of their team. This might happen because of specific actions that that are obvious to everyone or it might happen because of subtle use of language or actions. As a manager, you never know when someone might be offended by something you say or do, but by using inclusive language, you will at least be working everyday to choose your words and actions carefully to ensure maximum employee engagement. (Dealing with an employee that disengages because of their own choices is a different conversation.)
If a manager is not careful and language of inclusion is not used and demonstrated then individual employees might feel excluded and eventually become disengaged. And when an employee becomes disengaged, their work becomes “an environment of suspicion, people withhold information, hide behind psychological walls, and withdraw from participation" (Goman, 2017).
Is worrying about inclusive language just being politically correct?
No. As stated, gone are the days of managers or leaders saying whatever they want without consequence. Gone are the days of jokes at the expense of others (usually those not in the room). Gone are the days of managers or leaders complaining that the country is too PC and venting about it while employees grin and bare it. (Actually, all of this happens but the people who do this are held accountable eventually and in some manner.)
Over the past few decades, being politically correct has helped create a more inclusive culture and work environment. With that said, are there issues with being too politically correct as stated in a wonderful Harvard Business Review article:
We are troubled, however, by the barriers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray, and performance suffers (Ely, Meyerson, & Davidson, 2006).
If you listen to the loudest people in the room they want others to be either 100% politically correct or 0% politically correct. This is not helpful. When it comes to using inclusive language, managers need to focus on using language and demonstrating actions that helps bring down barriers, improves communication, strengthens employee engagement, and sets a foundation of trust where employees can feel part of the team. All of this is not being overly politically correct, it is just a manager doing their job.
Reference:
