These abstract nouns—called nominalizations—serve a purpose in professional communication. But like politicians who rely on them to avoid clear accountability, we often use them reflexively, obscuring who’s responsible for what action.

 

They help us:

Discuss complex concepts efficiently

Navigate sensitive topics diplomatically

Appear polished in formal contexts

But when overused, they:

Create vagueness where clarity is needed

Remove accountability (like when leaders say “Mistakes were made” instead of “We made mistakes”)

Make simple concepts needlessly abstract

 

Listen for:

• -tion, -ment, -ance, -ity endings

• Nouns that could be verbs (“decision” vs. “decide”)

• Sentences where no one is clearly taking action

 

Ask for Specifics

“When you mention ‘resistance,’ who specifically is resisting what?”

Restore the Action

“We need expectation alignment” → “Let’s align on what we expect from each other”

Request Examples

“Could you share an example of the disruption you’re seeing?”

Summarizing complex initiatives

Documenting high-level concepts

Maintaining diplomacy in sensitive situations

The Professional’s Rule: Use them intentionally, not as a default.