There seems to be an addiction to big words around me.
Last week, I got a newsletter with the subject line: “DEI is under attack!”
It made me pause, and think about what’s happening in Gaza.
If workplace diversity programs are “under attack,” what vocabulary is left for situations where people are actually dying?
When everything’s a five-alarm fire, we lose the ability to name real crisis. Walk into any meeting, scroll your feed, turn on the news. Everything is urgent.
“This changes everything!”
“Our metrics are a disaster!”
“We’re at war with wokeness!”
It’s hyperbole on a loop.
Best. Worst. Hero. Villain. Nothing in between.
But what if this hurts more than it helps? What if the real work happens in the quiet spaces between the big claims?
Why extreme words are being used in the media
Studies show that extreme posts get more likes and shares online (Brady et al., 2017; Rathje et al., 2021). Politicians who tweet angry messages get more attention (Hong & Kim, 2016). This creates a cycle. The loudest voices win. The careful voices get ignored.
In justice work and workplace conversations, this shows up as black-and-white thinking. Programs either work perfectly or fail completely. People are either allies or enemies. Progress either happens or it doesn’t.
But real change is messier than that.
The role of nuance in a changing world
Nuance means seeing the gray areas. It means understanding that most things are complex, not simple.
Research shows that the words we use shape how we think and feel (Barrett et al., 2007; Lupyan, 2012). When we use simple words for complex problems, we limit our ability to solve them.
Nuance in a changing world means:
- Good plans can have bad side effects
- Progress happens at different speeds in different areas
- People are complicated
- What works in one place might not work in another
- We can hold two different ideas at the same time
What we lose when we think in extremes
When we only use extreme words in justice work, we create problems:
We push away people who might help us. Someone who supports fairness but questions one approach isn’t your enemy. They might just want a better way.
We over-simplify complex problems. Real justice work means understanding power, culture, history, and individual experiences. “Just hire more diverse people” sounds easy but ignores pipeline problems and culture issues.
We miss chances to learn. When we defend extreme positions, we stop looking at what actually works and what doesn’t.
We create false choices. The real work isn’t choosing between “perfect justice” and “merit-based systems.” It’s building systems that are both fair and effective.
Where real work happens
Real justice work doesn’t happen in headlines. It happens in the details:
A manager realizes their “cultural fit” hiring rule might exclude good candidates who communicate differently. A team discovers their review process punishes people who don’t promote themselves. An organization learns their mentoring program works for some groups but misses others.
This work takes time. It’s often uncomfortable. It means accepting that good people can disagree on methods while sharing goals. It also means testing, testing, testing.
Tools for better thinking
1. Use “And” instead of “But”
Avoid: “We want diversity, but we need qualified people.”
Try: “We want diversity, and we’re committed to finding qualified people from all backgrounds.”
2. Map the context
Before solving problems, ask:
- What happened here before?
- What limits do we have?
- Who cares about this and why?
- What worked in similar places?
3. Think in scales
Avoid: “This program failed.”
Try: “This program reached some goals and missed others.”
4. Consider time
Things change. Try: “This looks promising early on. We’ll need to see long-term results.”
Ask: What do the numbers tell us? What don’t they show? What questions do they raise?
7. Think about real implementation
Try: “This sounds good on paper. In practice, we’ll need to address…”
Which tool seems most useful to you? How might you try more complex thinking in your next conversation?
A different way to talk
What if we talked about justice work like other complex challenges? With curiosity, not certainty. Looking at patterns and results, not just good intentions.
This might sound like:
- “We’re seeing good trends in hiring. We’re learning that keeping people points to different challenges.”
- “This worked well for this team. We’re adapting it for others and tracking what we need to change.”
- “We’re balancing several priorities and refining our approach based on feedback.”
What research shows
Studies of social media show that platform design affects how people argue (Yarchi et al., 2021). The same is true for justice work. How you set up the conversation matters as much as what you say.
Research on group contact shows that bringing different groups together can reduce bias (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). But it works best when groups have equal status and common goals. Can we use such insights in leading fair and constructive conversations?
In other words
The best justice practitioners aren’t the loudest ones. They ask better questions. They try small experiments. They measure what matters. They change course based on what they learn.
The words we choose shape how we think about problems (Lupyan, 2012). When we choose precision over performance, we create space for thinking that leads to real change.
Extreme words will keep coming. The pressure to take sides will continue. There is work in creating places where everyone can succeed in the careful space between the headlines.
That work deserves our best thinking, not our loudest voices.#
References
- Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
- Barrett, L. F., Lindquist, K. A., & Gendron, M. (2007). Language as context in the perception of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 327-332.
- Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313-7318.
- Hong, S., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 777-782.
- Lupyan, G. (2012). What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 255-297.
- Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
- Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118.
- Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 98-139.
