The Power of Words in Organisational Life

Before NLP there was Lao Tzu. His admonition to “watch your thoughts, for they become your words” forms part of a ’cause and effect’ chain which helps us to think about how present actions, and the thoughts behind them, lead to longer-term consequences.

While the truth of this formulation can be readily recognised, the reverse formulation used in the title above is perhaps less acknowledged. For example, to what extent are we aware of the words we use creating a form of programming (or self-hypnosis) which limits our self-belief and confidence?

In both my consulting and mentoring experience, I have found this to be a recurring theme. Both organisations and individuals can use words framed in ways that undermine their achievement of desired outcomes.

What Are Modal Verbs and Why Do They Matter?

Modal verbs are auxiliary verbs that express mood, modality (necessity/possibility), or intent e.g. must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might. Some are weak (e.g. want, strive) while others are strong (e.g. will, can).

Formulating vision, mission, goal, or principles statements which employ weak modal verbs can cause directors, staff, and volunteers to think of the desired outcome as being deferred indefinitely; i.e., being merely an aspirational goal.

Wishing doesn’t make it so. As noted in the header chart above and the chart which follows, if we regard our desire only as a wish — something we “just want” — we may unconsciously frame it as forever out of reach.

Strong Vs Weak Intention Framing

A goal like “We want to make a big difference” asserts a perpetual lack or need. This could be reframed more powerfully as: “We make a big difference by focusing our efforts on …”.

Desire alone doesn’t create results — instead, we need focused effort, purposeful action, and inner alignment with our values and intentions.

“Hope is not a strategy”.
Rick Page, 2001

If we want to imbue our team members with a ‘can do’ attitude and strong belief in our capacity to achieve our purpose, we need to frame our intention statements using strong modal verbs. The next table offers five types of communication objectives, and assigns them to a strength rating according to the words used.

The Causality Chain: How Belief Shapes Outcome

Many traditions have identified principles of causality. These include philosophical, psychological, spiritual, and scientific perspectives. Directors and managers use causal chain concepts when planning, or when doing risk or incident analysis. The chart below offers a selection of perspectives and permits comparison of their common threads and notable differences.

Included in this table is the principle of social constructivism, which asserts that knowledge is constructed through human activity, and ‘reality’ is co-created by the members of a given society or community. Beliefs and language shape each person’s experience of reality. Also, individuals create meaning through their interactions with others and the environments they live in.

The culture of our organisation, and the lived experience of its reality, are continuously formed and refined by our community members. A key element in that formation is the wording of our statements of intention e.g., vision, mission, goal, and principle statements. (Note: Principles are a core element of every organisational policy).

Improving your ‘Framing’

Here is a collection of insights and guidance offered by eight authoritative sources on the framing of these intention statements in ways that are not internally contradictory or unintentionally disempowering:

1. George Lakoff emphasises that the language we use activates deeply embedded conceptual frames in the brain. When vision or mission statements are framed using weak or aspirational language, such as “we want to” or “we hope to,” they unconsciously reinforce a sense of distance or unattainability. Instead, Lakoff recommends using present-tense, declarative language that activates empowering frames aligned with values and identity. A principle like “we are committed to justice” engages a stronger moral frame, and hence more effective actions, than “we want to be just.”
2. Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), particularly through the work of Robert Dilts, teaches that language shapes subjective experience and behavior. Words like “should,” “might,” or “want to” signal internal incongruence or a lack of commitment. NLP encourages framing goals and values at the identity level. Statements such as “we are inclusive” or “we act with courage” are far more effective than tentative expressions.
3. Danielle Braun and Jitske Kramer, drawing from corporate anthropology, show that language in organisations functions like ritual: forming the cultural DNA of the group. Principles and values, therefore, must be crafted as axiomatic truths, not optional aspirations. Rather than say “we strive to include diverse voices,” a statement like “we include diverse voices in all we do” asserts identity and practice, making the principle not just a belief but a lived norm within the organization’s cultural tribe.
4. Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline describes a “shared vision” as a powerful force when it connects to deep personal purpose and organizational learning. However, a vision framed in vague or conditional language fails to generate alignment. Senge urges that vision statements be emotionally engaging, present-tense, and reflective of what people truly care about. Phrases like “we will” or “we are creating” provide direction and agency, while avoiding passive or bureaucratic formulations.
5. Simon Sinek, known for his “Start With Why” framework, teaches that the most inspiring organizations are driven by a clear sense of purpose. His advice is to root all strategic language in a compelling “why,” then connect that to how and what the organisation does. This means replacing transactional statements like “we deliver services” with more powerful declarations such as “we exist to unlock human potential.” Sinek’s framing centers on clarity, motivation, and inspiration.
6. Jim Collins, in Built to Last, introduces the idea of “core ideology”—a combination of deeply held values and a clear purpose. He emphasizes that goals should be bold but concrete—what he calls “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (BHAGs)—and framed as specific outcomes, not just open-ended intentions. For example, “we will eliminate illiteracy in our region by 2030” is a clear, actionable goal, whereas “we aim to improve literacy” is too vague to galvanize meaningful commitment.
7. Marshall Rosenberg, the founder of Nonviolent Communication, offers important insight into how language can connect or disconnect people from action. He discourages moralising or vague desire statements like “we should” or “we want to,” and instead advocates for needs-based, empathetic, and action-ready language. Reframing a value as “we take action to ensure justice” rather than “we want justice” affirms dignity and immediacy, turning aspiration into shared responsibility.
8. Etienne Wenger, known for his work on communities of practice, highlights the importance of shared meaning in organisational language. Vision, mission, and principles must act as “boundary objects”—clear enough to unify, but flexible enough to allow diverse roles to engage with them meaningfully. This requires concise, identity-centered wording that transcends mere operational goals. Framing principles as “we are a learning community” rather than “we hope to support learning” anchors action in identity and belonging.

Near Enemies of Commitment

Even with strong intentions, our statements can be subtly undermined by language that mimics clarity while evading accountability. This is where the concepts of ‘weasel words’ and ‘near enemies’ become crucial.

Watson’s Dictionary of Weasel Words (Don Watson, Penguin, Vintage Australia, 2005) drew critical attention to the use of words or phrases that are ambiguous, misleading, or deliberately vague. Politicians, managers, bureaucrats, and others employ such words when trying to massage or manage their messages; especially when they wish to avoid sharp accountability. These words drain meaning from discourse by appearing to say something, while saying very little or nothing at all e.g., “going forward” (sounds authoritative but lacks accountability), “negative patient outcomes” (sounds vague compared to ‘the patient died‘).

To the extent that our nonprofit organisations use such ‘blurred‘ language, we disengage and disempower our team members from both meaningful work and effective accountability for the outcomes and impact of that work. Many strategic plans, performance plans, annual reports, and media releases prepared by nonprofits have suffered from this lack of specificity and clarity.

Borrowing and adapting the Buddhist concept of the ‘near enemies‘ of spiritual truth, the following definition has been used in this post:

“Near enemies” are states of mind or behaviors that closely resemble a desirable quality or virtue but ultimately undermine it, acting as a deceptive substitute.

The list of 20 weak or tentative modal verbs (‘Near Enemies of Commitment’) below express desire, hope, or possibility, but often lack assertion, commitment, or immediacy.

Use of such language in official statements (e.g., vision, mission, goal, and principle statements) can signal uncertainty, hesitation, or lack of accountability. When used without reinforcing language, they leave too much room for interpretation, which can erode trust or dilute organisational alignment.

Conclusion: Choosing Words that Lead to Action

Modal verbs and qualifiers must be carefully chosen to support rather than undermine intention. Use of weak verbs signals aspiration without commitment, possibility without certainty, or intention without action.

See also:
Frames, framing effects, & Reframing
Identifying with Purpose
Foundational Thinking for Nonprofit Leaders
Discourse (Rhetoric) at Work
Choosing an organisational metaphor? Choose Wisely!

(See also Christopher Wallis’ book Near enemies of the truth: avoid the pitfalls of the spiritual life and become radically free [Wonderwell, 2023], critiquing numerous ideas that characterise self-help culture, and highlighting their original underlying truth whilst exposing the ways they have been distorted).