With all this flashy language, how do we know if we mean what we say?

While I was in college, a communications professor and I would regularly spar over the use of language by flamboyant, outgoing and very public executives of many companies. We’d discuss what colorful nonsense was recently tweeted by Elon Musk or the recent comments that came from Whole Foods Market’s John Mackey about socialism. We’d agree that the use of strong and pointed language is vital to direct a company and create the correct type of culture, but it sometimes can feel artificial and overblown. I once heard from Scott Willaimson, then-vice president of public affairs at Coca-Cola North America, at a conference in 2015, who shared with us that at its heart, Coke is about the stories we have and share; every American has some type of story or connection involving Coke. He also made sure to work in a PSA claiming that aspartame is safe (nobody asked). Nevermind the fact that Coca-Cola recently funded research to suggest that their drinks don’t cause or contribute to obesity and, around the turn of the century, was accused of poisoning water supplies in India; Coca-Cola is about happy stories and polar bears.

Obviously, to some extent, this type of language and imagery clearly works. Sure, many people think sugar or obesity when they think of Coca-Cola, but even more think of polar bears, summertime and happiness. The type of colorful language that is closely tied to their branding significantly impacts the way people think of the brand. Similarly, one of my favorite mission statements by any corporation is Starbucks’s “To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.” A number of skeptics and realists will look at that mission statement and scoff, “You people sell overpriced coffee. You’re not starting some spiritual revolution.” I, myself, have thought that; I’m often torn as a result. I mean, who am I to say that’s not entirely true? Hell, forget about whether it’s true or not (i.e., if it’s actually happening, as it’s the company’s “mission”). Is Starbucks truly striving to make this happen? Many powerful and enlightening conversations have happened inside a Starbucks; many friendships formed, romances bolstered, laughs shared and connections created. So what’s truer, “Starbucks exists to sell coffee” or “Starbucks exists to inspire human connection”?

Enter the latest, greatest example: WeWork. This laughable, IPO-ready startup made headlines late last year when it withdrew its intention for an initial public offering amidst recent PR foibles. Valued at $50 billion, the office-sharing company’s value quickly vanished as allegations of toxicity in the culture and inappropriate behavior on the part of then-CEO Adam Neumann were published in The Wall Street Journal. It was once one of the highest-valued startups in the world. Adam Neumann claimed that WeWork was “elevating the consciousness of people on the planet.”

“Elevating the consciousness” of people sharing an office? What an absurd claim. It’s especially troubling that this totally unoriginal, not-at-all impressive idea for a business took off the way it did. In part, it was due to then-CEO Adam Neumann and his grand, provocative presence and language. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of a “movement” that was going to change the way people work, connect and share? It’s so incredibly inspiring and heartening. It’s a bold claim to make. Neumann quickly developed a reputation for this type of language, matched with relatively odd and eccentric behavior. The Wall Street Journal reported that Neumann had unusual aspirations, including living forever, becoming the world's first trillionaire, expanding WeWork to the planet Mars, becoming Israel's prime minister and becoming "president of the world.” It’s easy to see in hindsight that much of WeWork’s buzz and value came from the empty words of a crazed chief executive.

This is the conflict for me. Using emboldening, galvanizing language can help guide a company and inspire a greater meaning and connection in the work being done. I truly believe (and support) Starbucks’s mission to “nurture the human spirit.” I believe that when REI Co-op claims, “we believe a life outdoors is a life well-lived” and “our purpose is to awaken a lifelong love of the outdoors,” they mean it. Sure, Starbucks sells coffee and REI sells camping equipment. An argument can be made that arousing and provocative language in mission statements, company training videos and press releases exists purely to instill a sense of purpose in an otherwise meaningless, unfulfilling employment. Perhaps that can be true sometimes. I can’t say for sure. I do know that, in the case of WeWorks, the use of such language was clearly a distraction from the lack of substance and material value in the company. I’d argue that it’s a true disservice to those organizations, for-profit and non-profit, that invest a great deal of time and energy into creating a fulfilling corporate culture and mission.

Side note: Tune-in January 29th for the premiere of Wondery’s newest podcast, WeCrashed, a six-part series on the rise and fall of WeWork.

Header image courtesy of The Next Web.