Words Shape What Organizations See, Decide, and Ultimately Become
- Dr. Jeff Doolittle
- May 4
- 5 min read
Updated: May 4
Communication is one of the most central functions of life. Like air, the words leaders speak can give life to a business. But words can also constrain and limit realities.
When leaders consistently talk about what is wrong, they ignore what might be and limit what's possible. Fixing what is wrong is important, but considering the best of what is and what might be is necessary to inspire a shared vision. Shared vision unlocks a growth mindset, embodies hopes, and gives an organization a sense of purpose.
Leadership language is not just communication. It's part of the organization’s operating system. Often overlooked, leadership language does more than communicate priorities. Research has shown that it not only reflects thought but systematically shapes what individuals are able to perceive and act upon. What leaders communicate sets the stage for what the organization sees, discusses, and ultimately decides. Over time, language patterns influence not only how people think but also the quality of decisions an organization can make.
Changing Your Mindset to Change Your Results
Many current work processes are designed to identify deficits and problems rather than find strengths. A deficit-thinking approach starts with leaders identifying shortcomings and selecting solutions to address them. The goal is to see all the potential gaps so that continuous improvements can be introduced.
While this approach leads to progress, it does not identify what you want beyond knowing the solution to the problem. It can also unintentionally narrow how individuals and teams define success and opportunity.
Deficit thinking leadership approaches are failing business and society. This mindset has led to incremental workplace improvements, a flood of low-cost, high-quality disposable products, and a lack of innovation.
While deficit thinking has been used successfully in many organizations, it is not without risks. Deficit thinking techniques can put people on the defensive, create resistance, a lack of buy-in, and in some cases develop a culture of blame rather than encourage change.
How engaged will employees be if they believe leadership views them as problems needing to be fixed?
Additionally, when leaders are always approaching employees about what is wrong, eventually, employees associate the leader with being the problem—even if what the leader has to share is helpful to the business. You know this link has occurred when hearing others say sarcastically, "I am from corporate, and I am here to help." They are saying this because they know they are not being viewed as helpful.
Over time, this pattern can do more than affect engagement—it can influence what employees choose to share, what they withhold, and how openly they contribute to decision-making processes.
Compared with strengths-based approaches, deficit-oriented thinking leads to lower employee engagement, lower levels of performance improvement, and higher employee attrition rates. In learning studies, it has been found that individuals engaged in approaches to identify deficits have lower perceptions of competence and lower intrinsic motivation than strength-based approaches.
Strength-Based Thinking
I define strength as the best of what is and potential for the best of what can be within a person, team, or organization. Strength-based thinking is not ignoring weaknesses; instead, it is about prioritizing and pursuing understanding, reinforcing, and leveraging the best of what can be.
This shift is not simply about positivity—it influences how individuals and teams interpret challenges, identify opportunities, and contribute to outcomes.
Appreciative framing and appreciative interviews are two strength-based skills that support strength-based thinking.
Appreciative Framing
Individuals, teams, and organizations move in the direction that is repeatedly discussed and where questions are asked. Appreciative inquiry assumes that our inquiries define outcomes, and we influence the results by discussing them.
Appreciative framing is taking a given focal point for transformation and restating it as an opportunity. In doing so, leaders influence not only how challenges are viewed, but also how people engage with them and what actions are considered possible.
The following are some examples:
Framed as Concerns
Bias in the workplace
Customer complaints
Missed opportunities
Absence of leadership
Framed as Opportunities
Embracing differences at work
Exceptional customer support
Seeing new challenges
Growing exceptional leaders
Facilitating Appreciative Interviews
Every employee and team has strengths. In contrast to deficit thinking, the focus is on what has worked, what is working, and the strengths. An appropriately developed appreciative interview builds on these points to guide the individual and team toward a positive future.
When listening, it is essential to focus on the positive things happening in the story, how they unfold, and the attributes that make their dreams and wishes so exciting. This focus can shape how individuals understand their roles, capabilities, and contributions to the organization.
Once the focal point of the discussion is framed appreciatively, a couple of my favorite appreciative questions are:
What would you wish for if you had three wishes to dramatically improve your organization's health and vitality? (no, you cannot wish for more wishes)
Imagine it is five years from today, and everything you had hoped for related to the appreciative focal point of the interview has come true. What would you see and hear? Describe the changes with people, processes, places, products, and services. Describe what you or others have done to make these changes possible.
Embracing a strength-based habit prompts us to explore new and creative ways to approach our work, solve problems, and complete projects. Instead of our words working against us or limiting us, strengths-based thinking works in our favor.
Over time, the words leaders consistently use become institutionalized realities. They shape how the organization operates, regardless of whether those realities reflect the full truth of the business. When leaders are intentional with their language, they influence not only perception but also the range of possibilities people are willing to pursue.
If you are looking for executive coaching or need change consulting, we're ready to partner with you to craft a solution tailored to your organization's context and challenges.
References:
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Collings Publishers.
Cooperrider, D. and Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 1, pp. 129–169.
Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Shared Identity Is Key to Effective Communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 171–182.
Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths‐based development in practice. In P. A. Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.), (pp. 256-268). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hiemstra, D., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015). The effects of strength-based versus deficit-based self-regulated learning strategies on students' effort intentions. Motivation and Emotion, 39(5), 656-668.
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.
