Censorship | Words | Ban | Projects | Strategy

Language Landmines

When common words become contraband

Words matter. In strategy and project management, the language we use shapes decisions, influences stakeholders, and determines how initiatives are perceived. But what happens when certain words become “dangerous”?

Recently, the New York Times published a list of terms that — while not officially banned — were quietly discouraged or flagged in government communications. Some were removed from websites, others triggered additional scrutiny in funding proposals, and many were deemed too risky to use in official documents.

A snippet from the list published by the New York Times

The absurdity becomes even more apparent when examining the list. Many of these words are neutral and, by the way, some are fundamental to basic project communication or strategic thinking.

• At risk: besides its use in risk assessments to describe potential failure points or dependencies in a project, it’s almost standard phrasing for discussions about schedule. Should we use “potentially doomed” in status reports instead?
• Barriers: commonly appears in strategy documents when identifying obstacles to change or innovation.
• Bias & Confirmation Bias: essential in data analysis and decision-making, where it’s…