top of page

Moral Exclusion and Dehumanizing Narratives: What Every Leader Must Know

Writer's picture: Eddy Paul ThomasEddy Paul Thomas

What happens to the foundation of an organization when the language we use strips away the humanity of those we discuss? This question isn’t abstract. It’s a pressing ethical dilemma that affects workplaces, boardrooms, and leadership decisions. Dehumanizing language—whether intentional or not—is insidious. It creeps into casual conversations, performance reviews, and strategic plans, eroding the foundational values of empathy and respect.


As conscious leaders, we need to pause and examine: how often do we default to terms that reduce individuals to metrics, labels, or stereotypes? In a study published in the Journal of Business Ethics, researchers found that workplaces with a culture of objectifying language experienced higher turnover rates, lower employee satisfaction, and diminished innovation. When we call people "resources" instead of individuals, or dismissively label someone as "a problem," what we’re really doing is creating an environment where connection and trust cannot thrive.


Consider this: when was the last time you heard someone refer to a team as "headcount" or reduce a customer complaint to a "ticket"? This is, of course, a minor example and these terms may seem harmless, but they subtly shift our perception. Instead of seeing a team member with ambitions, fears, and unique talents, we see a number. Instead of empathizing with a customer’s frustration, we process them as data.


Dehumanizing language doesn’t only harm those on the receiving end. It damages the speaker, too. Research in social psychology, such as a 2023 article in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, shows that repeated use of dehumanizing language dampens our neural capacity for empathy over time. This means that the words we choose don’t just describe our reality—they shape it. And as leaders, this shaping comes with enormous responsibility.


The harm extends even further into what social psychologists refer to as "moral exclusion." This occurs when individuals or groups are framed in ways that subtly or overtly place them outside the boundary of those deserving moral concern. Imagine being a person of color or an immigrant who has worked tirelessly to succeed, only to be reduced to a stereotype or a dismissive label. The language we use can delegitimize their contributions and, in extreme cases, justify systemic exclusion or the erosion of rights. A study in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology highlights how dehumanizing language contributes to the justification of inequitable policies and practices, perpetuating cycles of marginalization.

So, what can we do?


1. Cultivate Language Awareness

The first step is recognizing when dehumanizing language arises. Develop a culture where language is scrutinized with the same care as strategy. Are your meeting agendas and HR policies framed with humanity in mind? For instance, instead of referring to "low performers," consider language like "individuals facing performance challenges." This shift acknowledges the person behind the label and opens the door to constructive solutions rather than blame.


2. Embed Empathy into Organizational Communication

Empathy isn’t just a personal value; it’s a leadership skill. As leaders, ask yourself: how does the language we use reflect our values? Do we use language to empower, or do we unknowingly perpetuate harm? Techniques such as nonviolent communication (NVC) can be a powerful tool. Marshall Rosenberg’s framework for NVC emphasizes observations, feelings, needs, and requests over judgments or demands. Adopting this approach can transform how teams interact, fostering a culture of understanding and respect.


3. Redefine Metrics and Accountability

Business studies, such as those highlighted in Harvard Business Review, show that organizations thrive when employees feel seen and valued. Redefining how we measure success is crucial. Instead of focusing solely on "productivity," integrate metrics that capture employee well-being and engagement. For example, rather than framing a team’s performance as "lagging behind," leaders might discuss "how we can better support this team to overcome current challenges."


Questions for Reflection

  • How does the language we use in our workplace reinforce or challenge systemic inequities?

  • Are we unintentionally normalizing harmful phrases because they’re “industry standard”?

  • How can we align our organizational language with the values of empathy, equity, and unity?

Language is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how we wield it. As conscious leaders, we have the privilege and responsibility to use language as a force for dignity and connection. The soul of your organization depends on it.


Sources

  1. Journal of Business Ethics. (2021). The impact of objectifying language on organizational trust and turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 453-467.

  2. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. (2023). The neural impact of dehumanizing language on empathy. SCAN Journal, 18(1), 29-41.

  3. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. (2022). Moral exclusion and the systemic effects of dehumanizing narratives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(5), 324-338.


Comments


bottom of page