It is not always the formal communication and policy change that causes uneasiness among the employees. It can simply happen through a single word.
The offhand comment of a leader about the team or the function as being "non-core" may not seem significant in the beginning, but such words carry more weight than just mere conversation, as employees tend to take the meaning beyond its actual scope. Many think that by calling their work "non-core," they are trying to send the message that their jobs are not essential in any way and that their positions in the organization will change soon.
Experts in workplace behavior are of the opinion that it is not an overestimation on the part of the employees because language plays an important role in determining the status of employees and whether they belong to the organization or not. According to one study conducted by the Journal of Business Ethics, organizational language can be used to reinforce power dynamics and establish exclusion without any action being taken at all.
According to specialists, language indicating a secondary status may provoke worries regarding promotion opportunities, significance, or job security. Regardless of the intent of the leadership, workers may understand these remarks within the larger frame of organizational change, outsourcing, and prioritization.
As shown by the article in the Journal of Business Ethics, the use of informal language might promote social distance at work and affect employee inclusion or exclusion. This is important because feeling included encourages involvement. If workers start to believe that their efforts are not as vital as they once thought, their willingness to participate in their work may diminish.
These can eventually define an organizational culture. As per Management International Review, even communications that are supposed to be neutral and accommodating in nature can sometimes highlight differences in status, especially if there is perceived condescension in the way the speaker talks about the listener.
This leads to resentment, which remains unresolved but interferes with teamwork. The employee continues to work normally, but internally feels alienated from the organization.
It is precisely such an effect that sheds light on the significance of even minor remarks. It is not just about the term “non-core,” but rather what it implies. Do they perceive my role as non-essential? Is this the beginning of broader changes? Am I still considered valuable in this organization?
Such concerns could be reflected in the employee's experience.
Research conducted via the National Institutes of Health has also explored the reactions that workers, particularly those from underrepresented minorities, have towards implicit exclusion as a result of code switching or changing oneself in order to fit into the dominant organizational culture.
While such tactics help individuals cope with a tough situation, researchers note that such activities put a lot of pressure on employees to perform and manage their identity.
This burden usually remains invisible.
In contrast, in companies with low levels of trust, even efficiency terms might trigger suspicion among workers. This is one reason many studies consider language a good indicator of underlying organizational realities. Language shows the distribution of power within the organization, priorities regarding tasks, and inclusion versus lip service to inclusion.
Workers tend to pick up on those cues before managers realize what is happening.
Even the tiniest bits of language have the potential to create huge differences. And that’s why people pay such close attention to the words used by their leaders.
The offhand comment of a leader about the team or the function as being "non-core" may not seem significant in the beginning, but such words carry more weight than just mere conversation, as employees tend to take the meaning beyond its actual scope. Many think that by calling their work "non-core," they are trying to send the message that their jobs are not essential in any way and that their positions in the organization will change soon.
Experts in workplace behavior are of the opinion that it is not an overestimation on the part of the employees because language plays an important role in determining the status of employees and whether they belong to the organization or not. According to one study conducted by the Journal of Business Ethics, organizational language can be used to reinforce power dynamics and establish exclusion without any action being taken at all.
Why labels can affect morale
In many companies, workers attach great importance to their identity based on what they perceive as their value within the organization. In cases where the language used seems to undermine that perceived value, emotional reactions follow.According to specialists, language indicating a secondary status may provoke worries regarding promotion opportunities, significance, or job security. Regardless of the intent of the leadership, workers may understand these remarks within the larger frame of organizational change, outsourcing, and prioritization.
As shown by the article in the Journal of Business Ethics, the use of informal language might promote social distance at work and affect employee inclusion or exclusion. This is important because feeling included encourages involvement. If workers start to believe that their efforts are not as vital as they once thought, their willingness to participate in their work may diminish.
Subtle exclusion can build over time
It has been found that exclusion does not always have to be dramatic or clear. It usually comes across through normal day-to-day conversations. An offhand comment. A label. A joke. Constantly referring to certain groups of people as back-end functions instead of front-end strategic functions.These can eventually define an organizational culture. As per Management International Review, even communications that are supposed to be neutral and accommodating in nature can sometimes highlight differences in status, especially if there is perceived condescension in the way the speaker talks about the listener.
This leads to resentment, which remains unresolved but interferes with teamwork. The employee continues to work normally, but internally feels alienated from the organization.
Image Credit: TIL Creatives| An employee standing amidst a blurred, bustling office
There can be a real emotional toll
However, the consequences are not confined to the social dimension. As per research conducted by Current Psychology, feelings of marginalization within the workplace environment are associated with emotional exhaustion and decreased work engagement. Undervaluation, as researchers found, can lead to higher stress levels and a reduction in passion toward performing a given role.It is precisely such an effect that sheds light on the significance of even minor remarks. It is not just about the term “non-core,” but rather what it implies. Do they perceive my role as non-essential? Is this the beginning of broader changes? Am I still considered valuable in this organization?
Such concerns could be reflected in the employee's experience.
How employees often respond
While some choose to work hard to demonstrate their significance, others keep themselves quiet and detach themselves.Research conducted via the National Institutes of Health has also explored the reactions that workers, particularly those from underrepresented minorities, have towards implicit exclusion as a result of code switching or changing oneself in order to fit into the dominant organizational culture.
While such tactics help individuals cope with a tough situation, researchers note that such activities put a lot of pressure on employees to perform and manage their identity.
This burden usually remains invisible.
What this can signal about workplace culture
According to experts, what matters more here is the context in which that particular language operates. In firms where there is a high level of trust and open communication between managers and staff members, efficiency talk or hierarchy terms will not sound threatening.In contrast, in companies with low levels of trust, even efficiency terms might trigger suspicion among workers. This is one reason many studies consider language a good indicator of underlying organizational realities. Language shows the distribution of power within the organization, priorities regarding tasks, and inclusion versus lip service to inclusion.
Workers tend to pick up on those cues before managers realize what is happening.
Why these words matter
It may seem like a functional way of naming a job, but for the person who has that job, it can have more significance. According to findings, this sensitivity comes from the power of language to affect identity, security, and inclusion within the organization.Even the tiniest bits of language have the potential to create huge differences. And that’s why people pay such close attention to the words used by their leaders.
