I was talking with my colleagues today about the “tyranny of language” in our sector.
What does that mean?
In a way, it’s about good intentions gone horribly awry. Think about it—our addiction to high ideals and even loftier aspirations results in grant proposals and mission statements and bold promises that burden even our most creative and charismatic leaders with performance obligations that are impossible to meet. The result: burnout and a sense of failure that is frequently unwarranted.
If it were up to me, I would eliminate the following three words from the nonprofit vocabulary: innovative, transformative, and impactful. Here’s why:
Impactful. For starters, it’s not even a word (even if it is in Wikipedia). It’s not that achieving impact in concrete and measureable terms is unimportant to the nonprofit cause. It is. But defining, measuring, synthesizing, and ultimately learning “what works” (and what doesn’t) is really hard. It takes serious thinking, serious money (and, let’s be clear, a $50,000 program grant has no dollars left to measure a program’s impact), and a serious commitment to do this over a period of at least three years. It also takes a willingness to be proven wrong.
Is it any wonder, then, that ours is a sector that manages, plans, and sometimes even attempts to expand based on the last anecdotal description of a project that was ‘impactful’?
Transformative. This is a real word, but I have no idea what it really means. Do you? And does anyone really believe that transformative change (or impact) can be accomplished with $50,000 or even $100,000? My issue here is not with the pursuit of transformation.
It is hard to argue against the transformative, life-changing effect of a safe, clean apartment for a family living in a shelter (or on the streets) or a living-wage job for the working man or woman who has been unemployed for nearly two years.
My concern is that we, as a society, expect nonprofits to deliver these things on the cheap. Not only do we systematically under-pay the cost of delivering these services but we also give virtually no thought and allocate even fewer dollars toward building the infrastructure of the organizations that provide them. What any for-profit enterprise would consider “business as usual,” such as staff training or updated information-technology platforms, nonprofits are taught to see as luxuries or even wasteful (read: overhead).
Yet these cash-starved organizations on the front lines in poor neighborhoods are achieving transformative results every day by doing the basic blocking and tackling of meeting the needs of their communities.
And this brings me to the last word, innovative. I am not negative on innovation—who would ever bash creative, entrepreneurial programs?
However, it is the need to make everything we do sound “new” and “path-breaking” that consistently undervalues the hard day-to-day work—particularly in low-income communities—of providing quality day care, teaching kids to read, providing basic health care, and ensuring that the social fabric of a neighborhood isn’t torn to shreds. I, for one, would like to celebrate that continuous work for a change. And I might even call it impactful.







7 Responses to How Jargon Can Damage Nonprofit Work
81154412 - August 27, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Brava! Unfortunately, the funders who require impactful, innovative and transformative projects will likely not read this well-written and sensible essay.
mosborn - August 27, 2010 at 2:16 pm
As a funder please note that I am sending this sensible comentray to all my colleagues!
connieboyd - August 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I earn my living writing direct-mail appeals for nonprofits. The worst examples of jargon, in my opinion: annual fund, annual giving, annual gift. These terms should only be used in-house, never with donors or prospects. When you ask for an “annual gift,” you’re telling the donor you want him or her to contribute only once a year. Yet some of my clients still insist on doing it. You know who you are. Cut it out!
bsttrach - August 31, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Helpful list, but woefully short. We have an unforunately long and also unfortunately, not an exhaustive list of “bad words for good,” courtesy of Tony Proscio, on the Communications Network website here: http://comnetwork.org/Jargon_Finder
81012010 - September 2, 2010 at 9:29 am
Agree and ditto! They say fish will be the last to discover water, and that is why those of us in the communications office need to help our folks discover another way to reach a wider audience. Jargon is exclusionary and keeps potential supporters at arm’s length. With effort and practice, instead of “incorporating generic components of efficacious interventions” we can all “learn.” –Alison Cohen
bert_aspca - September 7, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Agree absolutely (especially that impactful is not a word!), and yet saw this as an opportunity to speak to colleagues in my field – animal welfare – about the need for MORE emphasis on impact: http://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2010/09/are-we-headed-toward-impact/. I see too many well-meaning organizations counting service delivery as evidence of results, and we must do a better job of focusing on real change. Thanks.
gregzeck - January 9, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“Impactful transformations”: now, that’s a good one. I tell my (college) students that the only time they might be “impacted” (a verb) is if they’re to be run over by a car, in which case they well might be “compacted” also (whether the car is compact or SUV). As for “transformations,” maybe we should leave them to poets, sculptors, and philosophers — those who deal in and understand just how transformative language can be and its plastic, pathetic properties? As a matter of course, those who prattle most about “innovation” must be sad hacks indeed. (The ladies, and gentlemen, protest too much.)