The Other N-Word

We’re familiar with the n-word. It’s offensive, demeaning. There is, however, another n-word. Most folks are unfamiliar with it, evidenced in the fact that we use it all the time. And when adults use the other n-word with adults, the results are not good.

I became acquainted with the familiar n-word through my Aunt Myrtle. She said there were “good blacks” and “bad n_____s.” Good blacks “knew their place” while bad ones were “uppity.” After college, I moved south. Many folks, including Christians, called every black person “n_____.” The n-word was a cultural given. So is the other n-word.

The other n-word is found in the Bible, in the feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14). Late in the day, the crowds listening to Jesus become hungry. The disciples say they need to go away and find food (or imply that Jesus needs to feed them). We know this because of Jesus’ reply: “They do not need to go away; you give them something to eat!” There’s the other n-word – telling another adult what they need to do. It’s demeaning, because you assume you have authority over another’s life.

I believe there is only one book in the Bible where an adult explicitly tells other adults what they need to do. In the Book of Hebrews, the readers are adults practicing a childish (not childlike) faith. In their immaturity, they “have need again for someone to teach you… you have come to need milk and not solid food” (5:12). “You have need of endurance” (10:36). I don’t believe there’s another instance in scripture where an adult tells another adult what they need to do. Why does this writer? I don’t know. But here’s a better question: why do we routinely tell others what they need to do?

“You need to get your reports in on time.” “You need to get involved.” “You need to be accountable.” We hear the other n-word all the time. Using it this way generally backfires. The other n-word treats adults as children. Telling children what they need to do is appropriate. But until recently, childhood was considered a short period of time. In medieval times, “after the age of seven, children entered the adult world,” writes James Davison Hunter.¹ If ancient societies got this right, telling anyone past the age of seven what he or she needs to do will yield diminishing results.

I became sensitized to the other n-word through the work of David Burnham, formerly a professor at Harvard. His company acquaints leaders with the neuroscience behind high-performing organizations (www.burnhamrosen.com). Burnham has periodically been my coach. I recently asked for his advice in preparing to meet with an executive team seeking to improve employee accountability. I asked each individual beforehand to describe the problem. They emailed their answers to me, and in every case, the n-word, or variations thereof, appeared. I asked Burnham about this use of the word need.

“Suggesting that someone needs to do something is, in effect, a suggestion by a supposedly ‘benevolent authority’ that the listener become dependent,” he wrote. When we feel that someone is trying to make us dependent, feelings of opposition are often aroused. The listener will feel that the “authority” is being critical as well as wrong. “It’s a true paradox, since the intent is so often to help but the long-term effectiveness of telling someone what they need to do often falls far short of expectations.”

It’s difficult to be self-aware of this paradox since 70 to 95 percent of our behaviors are non-conscious. We can, however, observe the detrimental effects in the opposition behaviors of others. Passive forms of opposition include missed deadlines and a lack of accountability. Aggressive forms include subterfuge and flat-out rebellion. The lesson? Treat adults like children and they’ll act like children.

The solution is re-scripting the way we talk. Burnham’s approach is called “return authority.” Take the example of accountability. Returning authority is manifested in four behaviors. The first is focus on results. For example, instead of telling colleagues they need to become accountable, ask: “What is the work problem we’re trying to solve?” The second behavior is grasping the problem’s paradoxes and complexities. Those closest to the problem often see complexities that managers miss. The question might be: “How would we solve this?” The third step is building mutuality – exploring the many ways that we might solve the problem of accountability. The last step is returning authority – asking colleagues, “What would be a beneficial solution?”

If re-scripting sounds arduous, you’re right. Research indicates that an individual’s motives are quite volatile until age 20, at the latest. Then they stabilize and remain relatively consistent. That’s why, after age 20, only 20 percent of adults ever change the way they actually behave. And they only change “through a direct action plan,” writes Burnham. The plan is relatively simple. You “script” beforehand the words you plan to use with someone else. You submit the script to a trained advisor who detects words that debase adults (ex: “You need to get your reports in on time”). The advisor deletes those words and you “re-script,” incorporating questions consistent with the Burnham approach. You write, rewrite, and rewrite again – until you get it right. It takes roughly one to three years for this approach to become second nature.

If you think words aren’t that important, consider that God created the heavens and earth through wise words. We’re made in the image of God, so “a divine element is present in language,” Richard Weaver noted.² Words matter. “Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances” (Proverbs 25:11). Telling adults what they need to do is a word spoken in wrong circumstances. Agreeing on a beneficial solution is a word spoken in right circumstances.

____________________
¹ James Davison Hunter, “Wither Adulthood?” The Hedgehog Review, Spring 2009.
² Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 148.