Does naming things make them worse?
Over the past few months, we have seen a significant rise in stress and overwhelm in many workforces. In this context, there has been an increased need to understand and make sense of what is occurring.
Naming experiences —whether it’s an issue, emotion, or dynamic—doesn’t necessarily make them worse, but it can heighten awareness and bring certain emotions to the surface. When we give something a name, we give it structure, scaffolding and with that comes a blend of clarity and focus.
Take workplace stress, for example. Understanding that we may be experiencing moral injury, burnout, compassion fatigue or vicarious traumatisation might make it feel more real and, for some, even more intense.
But naming it also validates the experience, making it easier to communicate and address collectively. It’s like pointing out the elephant in the room: the issue was already there, but by naming it, we bring it into the open where it can be addressed directly.
Why Naming Is Beneficial
Dr Daniel Siegel, a well-known child and adolescent psychiatrist, educator and author, says we need to ‘name it, to tame it’. He identifies the value of recognising and naming or challenging experiences and emotions.
The ability to give language to something is critical as it helps us feel less isolated and better understood which serves as a step toward tackling a problem and finding strategies to navigate through.
Naming it moves something vague and unsettling into a space where we can make sense of it and take action. Leaders often find that naming dynamics in the workplace can actually reduce anxiety because it shifts the focus from a general feeling of unease to a specific challenge that has potential solutions.
Just this week, a general manager from a workplace where I am delivering a series of Thrive at Work webinars, reached out to share how grateful they are that the staff are feeling seen and validated by the impact of systemic pressures. I hear this regularly, the immense value of feeling seen, recognised and understood.
The flip side
However, there is a balance. Naming something too early or without nuance can oversimplify complex issues, sometimes leading to assumptions or misunderstandings. This is especially important because we are all at different stages when we are going through challenging times.
Some of us are still grieving for easier times, and some of us have adjusted to being future focused, making plans and seeing the stressor as an opportunity.
Using Naming Wisely: Three Key Strategies
1. Define and Contextualise – When naming an issue, define it clearly and provide context to avoid misinterpretation. For example, if stress is a problem, specify whether it’s related to systemic pressures, workload, unclear processes, or something else.
2. Normalise, Don’t Stigmatise – Naming should aim to normalise rather than magnify negativity. For instance, calling out growing pains in a period of organisational change can help the team see challenges as part of a shared journey rather than individual failures.
3. Move to Action – Use naming as a springboard to discuss solutions. Once a challenge is identified and validated, collaboratively discuss steps to address it. Naming should create focus, not a sense of finality.
When Naming Might Become a Barrier
Naming can backfire, especially if it’s used to label people instead of behaviours or challenges.
Labels are for jars, not people
Terms like low performers or high-flyers can unintentionally cement people into roles, creating barriers to change or collaboration. It can create polarisation when we ‘other’ a person or group of people. Instead, let’s use naming to speak to experiences and circumstances, rather than as labels for people.
Naming experiences is a useful tool, not a conclusion. Used wisely, it can help us understand, connect, and problem-solve with clarity and empathy.