I was listening to a podcast by the incomparable Stephen Fry called The Seven Deadly Sins, and he mentioned metaphor and metonymy. The former I knew (“She has a heart of gold.”), but I had to look up metonymy.
The definition of metonymy is: when a word that is associated with something is used to refer to that thing, as when crown is used to mean “king” or “queen,” or when Mark Antony asks the people of Rome to lend him their ears in William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar. It’s also metonymy when an author’s name is used to refer to works written by that person, as in “We are studying Jane Austen.”
Metonymy—the act of referring to something by association—might seem like a harmless rhetorical shortcut. But in leadership communication, it often becomes a subtle escape hatch. Whether it’s “Legal said no,” “Finance needs this,”or “The system is broken,” leaders across sectors use language that distances themselves from decisions. This isn’t just style—it’s structure. When the language of leadership avoids agency, it risks lowering expectations, dodging accountability, and weakening the trust that teams, citizens, and stakeholders rely on. In this post, we’ll look at how metonymy functions in the boardroom, the nonprofit sector, and political speech—and what happens when leaders speak small while pretending to think big.
While metonymy can be a neutral tool of abstraction or clarity, in the wrong hands—or the wrong moments—it can indeed serve as a linguistic shield for weak leadership.
Metonymy can be used constructively
But most frequently it is used to avoid or deflect
What kind of leader uses metonymy most?
🎯 Real-World Metonymy in Leadership: Quotes, Analysis, How to Say it Better
Business Leadership
Quote: “Legal has advised against proceeding with this initiative.”
Context: A CEO addressing stakeholders about halting a proposed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) program.
Analysis: This statement employs metonymy by attributing the decision to “Legal,” thereby deflecting personal responsibility and framing the decision as a procedural necessity. It suggests that the initiative’s cessation is due to legal constraints rather than a strategic choice by leadership.
Better Framing:
💬 “I’ve reviewed Legal’s concerns regarding our DEI program. After careful consideration, I’ve decided to pause the initiative to ensure compliance with current legal standards. I take full responsibility for this decision and am committed to revisiting it as the legal landscape evolves.”
Why It Works:
This acknowledges legal input while clearly placing the decision-making responsibility on the leader. It demonstrates transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the organization’s values, fostering trust among stakeholders.
⚡ Utility Sector
Quote: “The system is currently unable to accommodate additional load.”
Context: A utility executive explaining service limitations during peak demand.
Analysis: “The system” abstracts the issue and shields leadership from accountability for infrastructure gaps.
Better Framing:
💬 “We haven’t yet invested enough in capacity to handle this load—this is a gap I take responsibility for addressing.”
👉 Leadership Tip: Abstract problems demand concrete accountability.
🤝 🤝 Non-Profit Leadership
Quote: “The organization has decided to pivot our focus to new initiatives.”
Context: A nonprofit director announcing the cessation of a long-standing community outreach program.
Analysis: This statement employs metonymy by attributing the decision to “the organization,” thereby deflecting personal responsibility and framing the decision as a collective choice. It suggests that the program’s termination is due to organizational strategy rather than a decision made by leadership.
Better Framing:
💬 “After consulting with our board and community stakeholders, I have decided to discontinue our community outreach program to allocate resources more effectively towards emerging initiatives. I take full responsibility for this decision and am committed to ensuring a smooth transition for all affected parties.”
Why It Works:
This revision acknowledges the input of various stakeholders while clearly placing the decision-making responsibility on the leader. It demonstrates transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the organization’s mission, fostering trust among supporters and the community.
🏛️ Political Leadership
Quote: “The administration has decided to implement a nationwide curfew starting at 9 PM to curb the spread of the virus.”
Context: A government official announcing new public health measures during a press briefing.
Analysis: This statement uses “the administration” as a metonym to generalize authority, effectively deflecting personal responsibility. The public hears a policy, but not a person behind it. It lacks direct accountability and leadership voice.
Better Framing:
💬 “As Prime Minister, I have decided to implement a nationwide curfew starting at 9 PM to curb the spread of the virus. I take full responsibility for this decision and am prepared to discuss its implications.”
Why It Works:
This revision puts leadership at the center of the message. It communicates clarity, authority, and accountability—qualities that increase public trust, especially in times of high-impact decisions. It also signals that the speaker is prepared to justify the action, not just announce it.
Metonymy Meets Misalignment: When We Reward Abstraction Instead of Accountability
In his classic 1975 paper, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B,” Steven Kerr exposed a quiet dysfunction in many organizations: they say they want one behavior—but reward something entirely different.
Vague Language ≠ Clear Outcomes
Metonymy allows leaders to speak abstractly—“The government is committed to change,” “We need systemic reform”—without tying themselves to measurable action.
🔁 Meanwhile, public trust hinges on results, not rhetoric.
👉 They hope for action (B), but reward statements (A).
Symbolic Language Masks Performance Gaps
By using institutions as stand-ins—“the system,” “the party,” “the committee”—leaders can appear engaged without actually being accountable.
🔁 But systems don’t vote, act, or choose. People do.
👉 We reward symbolic presence (A), while hoping for principled leadership (B).
Many Political Promises Aim to Signal Intent—Not Deliver Outcomes
Campaigns are full of metonymic abstractions:
“Washington is broken.”
“The market will decide.”
“Justice must prevail.”
These are linguistic shells—no actor, no timeframe, no measurable standard.
🔁 Voters hope for policy (B), but reward narrative fluency (A).
🧠 The Deep Link: Both Let Leaders Avoid Risk
- Metonymy protects by blurring lines of authorship.
- Rewarding A while hoping for B persists when the cost of clarity is too high (i.e., you might be held accountable).
Together, they allow leaders to look aligned without being committed.
🎭 Metonymy as Verbal Misdirection
When leaders say:
- “The administration has decided…”
- “The system isn’t ready…”
- “The market needs time…”
…they aren’t lying. But they aren’t leading either.
Metonymy lets leaders appear engaged without getting specific. It abstracts authority and erases the actor—just as organizations erase the connection between what they say they value and what they actually reward.
What phrases have you heard or read that said everything—and nothing at the same time?
Have you ever used (or been on the receiving end of) leadership language that dodged ownership or blurred the message?
🗨️ Drop your favorite euphemism, coded phrase, or “strategic sidestep” in the comments.