Better Leadership Through Proper Grammar
In an earlier blog post I described the “deep dark place” that our workforce often goes when we introduce a new idea, and suggested some things we could do to change the negativity to positivity. A year later I heard an interesting TEDx Talk that explained why that deep dark place exists. The talk is titled, “Grammar, Identity, and the Dark Side of the Subjunctive” by Phuc Tran. In this talk, Tran compares and contrasts the psychological impact of two linguistic moods: the subjunctive (expressions of possibility) and the indicative (statements of fact). Tran’s story is an insightful example of how his mastery of the English language—with its subjunctive mood—gave Tran the ability to imagine future possibilities and ponder alternative pasts, while his father’s native Vietnamese—a language without a subjunctive mood—gave his father the resiliency to deal with some major life setbacks. I can not possibly do his story justice here, and I highly recommend you listen to his original talk. But what struck me profoundly about his talk was the following statement:
“Should havedidn’t improve my present or my future. Should havesimply blinded me to what was, because I fixated on what wasn’t. Accepting things for what they are—accepting “indicativeness”—was my first step towards overcoming my depression and anxiety.”
He goes on to say, “The subjunctive allows us to be creative, but it also allows us to become mired in regret. And the indicative…the indicative doesn’t really allow us to imagine at all, but it does allow us to talk about ourselves and our experience in real terms.”
It turns out that this is not just the speaker’s personal experience, but is supported by a Gallup poll measuring optimism in various countries. The poll shows that the nations with a language that includes subjunctive mood are the most pessimistic, while nations with a language that does not have a subjunctive mood are the most optimistic since their language simply does not allow people to dwell on things that did not happen or have not yet happened. Tran’s conclusion is that we must understand the lens provided by the subjunctive and the indicative, and use them artfully to both harness creativity and actively choose a more positive and optimistic outlook.
Once I became aware of the power of grammar choices on emotion, I started to notice its impact everywhere at the organization I work for. For example, during his remarks to the 2018 GEOINT Symposium our CEO stated, “we have identified the necessary data science skills for our Team GEOINT – to recruit, hire, train, and advance our officers. To that end – in the next three years – we intend to train all of our teammates in computational thinking and basic coding.”
Notice the indicativeness of this statement. Saying “we have identified…” and “we intend to…” were likely intended to demonstrate commitment and resolve, but instead invoked a feeling of fear and anxiety amongst our workforce. What if I do not want to learn how to code? What if I cannot learn to be a computational thinker? Might the organization decide I’m no longer relevant and force me to leave? To be clear, I believe that we need to make declarative (indicative) statements where our values and standards are concerned, such as the expected adherence to our organization's core values or in following security practice. But it seems unlikely that our organization is really planning to only retain those who can learn coding and demonstrate computational thinking skills. Considering Simon Sinek’s premise that good leaders make their people feel safe (from his book Leaders Eat Last), this was certainly not the optimal way to introduce this idea to the workforce.
Another way good leaders can leverage the power of grammar is to be more be more deliberate in how we use past, present, and future conditional tenses. This seems to be a common problem that also causes anxiety and erodes our credibility when done poorly. Consider this example:
In his 2016 GEOINT speech our CEO stated, “We began transitioning to Object-Based Production four months ago. And it includes the conditioning, standardization, and migration of data into a Structured Observation Management – or SOM – framework. SOM and OBP are the fundamental building blocks of Activity Based Intelligence. And thanks to ABI, we’ll automate manually intensive workflows – so we can detect patterns and behaviors hidden in the noise today. That’s necessary, given the exciting increases in commercial data and open sources as we move from imaging a small percentage of the Earth each day to sensing all of it every day.” He went on to say that this would be in full practice by the 2017 GEOINT Symposium.
This statement is replete with indicative statements in the present and future tense. We began transitioning. We will automate workflows. And while there is no disputing the need for this modernization of our work, the transition to SOM and OBP was not well-implemented, was not sustained, and more than three years later our organization is no closer to realizing this goal. And yet our ability to sense more and more of the Earth expands daily.
I have found that our credibility as leaders is enhanced when we sprinkle in use of the future conditional tense to acknowledge the possibility that things might change or that delivering results may be harder than expected. For example, rather than saying “we’ll automate manually intensive workflows…” it might have been better to say, “I intend to commit the necessary expertise, training, and resources to automate manually intensive workflows. And when we deliver those things, our workforce will be able to detect patterns and behaviors…”. Although more nuanced, this reworked phrasing acknowledges the accountability of the organization to invest and deliver tools and training, and highlights the benefit to the workforce if they do their part in learning a new way of work. Instead we ended up losing credibility as leaders and turning a large part of our workforce off to the concept of Object-Based Production and Structured Observation Management.
In my 28 years of working in the national security sector, I have never encountered a workforce more focused on imagining what might have been, or what should be, than those who I work with today. This is a strength when our workforce focuses their enterprising spirit and determination on solving problems and delivering outstanding mission support. Anyone, regardless of position or rank, can raise a new idea and pursue innovative solutions at our organization. But this also can be a liability when our lack of resiliency causes us to spend unproductive energy lamenting missed opportunities or giving up at the first sign of opposition or setback.
Just as Tran describes in his TEDx Talk, we would be best served by finding a better balance of subjunctive and indicative language in our communication at all levels. Making more deliberate use of grammatical phrasing will not fix all that ails our organization, and our credibility as leaders will most certainly be measured by our ability to deliver real outcomes. But perhaps better use of the subjunctive mood and future conditional tense could make space for us to slow down, adjust course, or set new goals without giving the perception that we have abandoned one “shiny object” for another. And maybe greater use of the factual statements of the indicative will increase resiliency and optimism amongst our teammates that will allow us to embrace change and pull together to focus on delivering the best possible mission outcomes.
Trust. It all comes down to trust that management has your back, and that you trust your leaders to take you wherever the organization needs to go. That you trust that your leaders even understand what the organization does and that they have the skills and drive to do the most basic things, like buy necessary software or invest resources intelligently.
ReplyDeleteThat's WAY more important than use of the subjunctive.
Except insofar that the workforce understands that we SHOULD be able to deliver something as simple as OBP, that both culture and professional identity SHOULD matter, and that "leaders" SHOULD be held accountable for their personal conduct.
We have substituted a so-called "governance process" for accountable leadership and wrecked something beautiful. But there's still hope. The fact that the troops think in the subjunctive means that they retain the ability to imagine what could be. And if leaders inspire them instead of betraying their trust, they will achieve it.
John, I totally agree...trust is paramount. I'm just hoping there are things we can do at our levels to restore that trust.
ReplyDeleteGood grammar is an essential skill for leaders, and this article highlights its importance beautifully. Clear communication is the foundation of strong leadership, and proper grammar ensures your message is understood without ambiguity. Whether you're writing an email, delivering a presentation, or crafting a policy, your grammar reflects your professionalism and attention to detail. Why is good grammar so important? It helps build trust and credibility, making people more likely to respect your ideas.
ReplyDelete