Why We Need Better Language to Understand Our Organizations
If we can't name it, we can't manage it. Sensemaking starts with vocabulary.
We recently painted the interior of our home. Having just moved, I knew we would have to. And while it always looks great in the end, getting there is painful.
The hardest part isn’t the labor. It’s the color selection.
Despite having a decent eye from photography and photo editing, choosing paint is still an arduous process. I just don’t have the language for it.
I can name the colors of the rainbow. But that rainbow is still the ROYGBIV I was taught in elementary school. Seven words. Seven categories. But Benjamin Moore’s palette includes over 3,500 colors. Just in the red family alone, there are 452 shades.
We Can See More Than We Can Say
I can perceive these hues, but I can’t name them. I can’t remember them. And if I can’t name them or hold them in memory, I certainly can’t discuss how “Marooned” interacts with “Gossamer Veil” under morning light.
I don’t have the language for it. So I’m left guessing. And that guesswork limits what I can do.
This is not just about paint. It’s about how we make sense of the world.
Sensemaking Begins with Language
Without the right words, we can’t hold abstract ideas in our heads. We can’t compare them or structure them. We can’t shape strategy or communicate clearly. We can’t align.
The Greeks had four different words for love. I have one. I use the same word to describe my feelings for family, friends, a partner, or humanity as a whole. Sometimes, because that word feels too clumsy, I avoid using it altogether.
Language makes thought possible. When we lack vocabulary, we limit not only our expression but also our understanding.
Technical Language Unlocks Precision
In contrast, I have deep vocabulary in aviation. What someone else calls a “plane,” I see as a system of elevators, flaps, airfoils, and pitot tubes. I know what each part should look like, how it works, and what can go wrong.
That fluency lets me perceive dangers others might miss. A misplaced pitot tube cover, for instance, can be catastrophic. We saw the tragic outcome of that kind of failure in the case of Air France Flight 447.
None of those aviation words existed in common language a century ago. We created them because we needed them. We built the language to meet the complexity of the system.
Our Organizational Vocabulary Is Outdated
I believe we have hit the limits of our language inside many organizations. Just as visualizing everything as a hierarchy holds back our thinking, so too does our clumsy vocabulary.
We lean on vague jargon. But what do we really mean by “innovation”? Or “efficiency”? Or “synergies”? These words feel like placeholders, not tools. They are vague enough to pass for strategy and broad enough to fit anything. But they don’t help us reason. They don’t help us lead.
They are the organizational equivalent of saying “paint it red,” when the room really needs a careful combination of tones to feel right.
Why Modern Leaders Need a New Language
If we want to lead complex systems, we need a vocabulary that matches their complexity.
We need sharper terms to describe what is actually happening inside teams and across departments.
We need ways to express alignment, energy, friction, and momentum.
We need models that help us talk about structure and flow, not just roles and rules.
We need better concepts to describe what work feels like when it is going well, and when it is not.
And most of all, we need language that allows us to care about our work. Words that help us express love — for the mission, for our teams, for what we are building together.
Because if we cannot describe it, we cannot strengthen it.
For Technical Leaders Who Want to Think More Clearly
At Franklin Kinetics, we help technical managers and team leads develop a shared vocabulary for complexity. We provide tools, visual models, and common terms that help teams see the same system and move forward together.
Better decisions start with clearer thinking. And clearer thinking starts with better language.