To the Editor:
Alex Daniels’s recent article, 10 Words and Phrases You Should Never Use (April 1), makes the case for eliminating certain terms from the philanthropy lexicon, arguing that their complexity alienates the very people the field aims to serve. But these phrases aren’t linguistic hurdles — they’re essential tools for effective and nuanced communication and action.
Here are a few examples Daniels cites, along with my arguments for why they’re important:
Best practices: This term encourages efficiency in philanthropy. Best practices are proven strategies that can be adapted to suit specific contexts and needs. Daniels incorrectly argues that the term “encourages standardization.” Yes, blindly adhering to rigid best practices can be counterproductive. But best practices can also provide a baseline of knowledge and evidence critical to making decisions at the community level.
Asset mapping: This refers to a process in which organizations identify community strengths and resources to create targeted and culturally-relevant solutions. When an organization uses the term, it signals its commitment to empowering communities, not alienating them. It reframes problems as opportunities to use a community’s strengths to drive change.
Impact: By rigorously evaluating impact, nonprofits can allocate resources more efficiently, ensuring they achieve their intended objectives and actually help communities in need. The word doesn’t imply passive reception of aid where the community “has no role in its betterment,” as one expert in the article notes. An organization’s emphasis on “impact” instead reflects a commitment to accountability and results-oriented approaches.
Leverage: When using this term, philanthropy’s leaders don’t “shroud what they really mean,” as another expert suggests. They encourage transparency and comprehension by borrowing a well-known term from the business world, which clarifies strategies for donors. The word itself signals an organization is using existing resources efficiently to achieve more with less.
Systems change: This term refers to efforts to address and remove systemic barriers to equality and progress. The end goal is strategic, long-term solutions, not superficial fixes. While Daniels is right that the term is “dense,” it’s still important to use as it acknowledges that real change requires tackling the root causes of societal problems.
In philanthropy, clear language is paramount for getting things done quickly and efficiently. While Daniels’ call to simplify terminology may seem appealing, it risks diluting the nuanced strategies and goals essential for lasting change.
Philanthropy should embrace these words — not as barriers, but as tools for fostering collaboration between donors, organizations, and communities.
André Gorgenyi
President
Profit W Purpose
