[News Culture] A manager asks for more “initiative.” A project brief calls for “innovation.” Everyone recognizes the words, yet each person leaves the meeting with a different idea of what they require. The problem is not that employees speak different languages. It is that familiar language creates the illusion of agreement.
“How to Build a Shared Language at Work” examines how these unnoticed differences in meaning produce wasted meetings, confusing reports and deliverables that bear little resemblance to what was requested. Author Yosuke Horikoshi argues that organizations can reduce such friction by defining their most important words together instead of assuming that everyone already understands them in the same way.
Horikoshi studied philosophy before moving into business consulting, where he adapted philosophical dialogue for workplace communication. His method asks team members to explore the experiences, values and mental images they associate with frequently used terms. A discussion of “initiative,” for example, may reveal that one person understands it as acting without permission, while another sees it as identifying problems before they escalate. Turning those assumptions into explicit conversation allows the group to develop a shared working definition.
The approach begins with a deceptively simple question: “What do we mean by that?” Horikoshi maintains that teams often rush toward solutions before establishing what the problem, goal or key concept actually means. Asking about definitions at the outset can prevent discussions from circling endlessly and keep instructions from accumulating layers of misunderstanding.
The book draws on a shared-language dialogue model tested with more than 5,000 professionals through workshops at major Japanese companies, including Dentsu and NEC Solution Innovators. It explains both the principles behind the model and practical ways to use it in meetings, project planning and organizational development.
Philosophical thinking becomes especially useful when companies must question assumptions that once appeared self-evident. Instead of supplying a ready-made answer, dialogue makes room for employees in different roles and generations to articulate how they understand the same issue. The resulting common language does not erase disagreement; it gives participants a clearer basis on which to disagree, negotiate and make decisions.
Horikoshi also connects the method to his own experience of isolation during his school years. Philosophical conversation, he writes, allowed him to experience the pleasure of connecting with others through questions rather than competing over correct answers. That experience later shaped his belief that workplace alienation can be addressed by creating spaces where people examine meaning together.
“How to Build a Shared Language at Work” is aimed at leaders and employees frustrated by meetings that produce more confusion than direction. Its central lesson is straightforward: effective communication depends less on repeating the same words than on doing the harder work of discovering whether those words mean the same thing to everyone in the room.
Reported by News Culture M.J._mj94070777@nc.press
Copyright ⓒ 뉴스컬처 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지
