How to remove "doubt" when writing about performance

Language is a powerful tool. It shapes perceptions of performance, acceptability and belonging. Language is also an accomplice of bias.

While we believe we choose words to fit the situation, we may not realize that our words are shaped by often hidden patterns that can give some folks advantages and others, disadvantages. In this way, words can convey our biases.

Words can convey our biases.

Take the concept of doubt.

Doubt has others question one’s abilities. Doubt is a negative sentiment that we do not intentionally wish to cast on most folks. Yet, often unbeknownst to us, doubt can creep into our assessments and statements of advocacy.

How does it work?

Imagine reading a letter of recommendation or a performance review with a strong rating. You want to be wowed by the letter or review, but it leaves you with a lukewarm feeling. You cannot put your finger on the reason, but you are less enthusiastic about their qualifications.

You may be reading the inadvertent—often hidden—doubt. This can happen when using words that dilute or dampen the accomplishment.

This form of doubt can take the form of what is also call a backhanded compliment. Words such as “managed to,” “eventually,” “seems,” “despite,” and “helped to” cast doubt on the accomplishment. Read these two statements:?

She eventually delivered strong results.

She delivered strong results.

Which is stronger? Which casts doubt?

Using “eventually” implies that difficulty may have happened before the accomplishment. Thus, it dilutes the accomplishment.

Now, if there is a development opportunity for this person—the “eventually,” then yes, that should be written as such. But the kind of doubt I’m writing about shows up when the writer intends to be positive.

The other problem is, this kind of doubt doesn’t show up equally for everyone. In our Lab’s research on performance evaluations, we found more of these diluting words show up more in reviews written about women. And while our research did not have data on other dimensions of underrepresentation, I can imagine that is likely shows up for folks who are from marginalized groups as well.

So, what can you do?

Just like there is a spell check, you can do a doubt check. Take a moment to scan any written praise, recommendation or endorsement. See if you can find these doubt raising statements and remove them.

Just like there is a spell check, you can do a doubt check.

In doing so, you will block bias from creeping into your word choices and dampening your advocacy. You will prevent your inadvertent doubt from casting a shadow on folks and have them experience a lack of support. Thus, you can be more effective in advocacy to support folks in your community.

In other words, you can turn language into a tool of advocacy, not doubt.

This is the first of several articles I will write on the strategic and inclusive use of language. I am excited to be working on a LinkedIn Learning course on the power of gender inclusive language. In this course, I present concepts on language as a tool of both inclusion and exclusion, as well as strategies to have folks feel a strong sense of belonging around.

Interested in learning more? I’ll share the link to my LinkedIn Learning Course when it’s ready!

You can also read more about these language trends in the work of the Lab and more on doubt in letters of recommendation by J.Madera, et al.

#diversityequityinclusion #performancereviews #dei #bias #withoutadoubt

?