‘VULNERABILITY’ HAS BEEN HIJACKED!
The word ‘vulnerability’ has been hijacked! For hundreds of years, this old word, which comes from the Latin, ‘vulnus’ meaning ‘to wound’, has been used to refer to our susceptibility to harm or our exposure to potential threats - in short, our weaknesses. Most definitely something to approach with caution!
However, quite recently, vulnerability has taken on a new meaning. In recent years, we’re hearing people say, ‘we need to cultivate more vulnerability’, or ‘leaders need to be more vulnerable’. It’s highly unlikely that anyone wants leaders to be more susceptible to harm or that we should cultivate an environment where we’re all exposed to more potential threats. But I’m not surprised that some folks are reluctant to agree to ‘more vulnerability’ when for millennia, ‘vulnerability’ has been clearly defined as a state of potential harm.
Modern requests for ‘more vulnerability’ are not seeking more susceptibility to harm. They are actually seeking more honesty about our weaknesses, more openness about our challenges, and more authenticity in how we show up. They’re not seeking more weakness, they’re seeking to build connection and aid communication through more honesty, openness and authenticity about our challenges so that we can collaborate creatively in the face of difficulties. Whether we’re at work, school, a sporting field or co-parenting, a willingness to communicate our challenges helps us to understand and support each other.
In my experience, most people agree that honesty, openness and authenticity are good traits to aspire to, but conversations on how to cultivate the psychological safety that allows for more of this new type of vulnerability can be difficult conversations. If we want to engage those who are reluctant to be more honest, open and authentic, it’s worth ensuring that our language isn’t alienating them, before we even start the conversation.
It’s easy to blame others for their lack of ability to move with the times and embrace this new language, but it’s worth considering that others' might have a different history with the word. In health care, law enforcement and the military, vulnerability has a long history of being used in a very different way to this modern usage.
If we're trying to lead people to a difficult place, it doesn't hurt to start with a clear request. When I ask people to be more honest, open and authentic, I get less resistance compared to when people are asked to be more vulnerable. We all know there are limits to honesty, openness and authenticity, and that creating psychological safety is ongoing work. If we want to lean into difficult conversations, why not start with language that everyone can get on board with?