Language in workplaces often evolves through habit rather than intention. Certain phrases become so common that they pass unnoticed, even when they carry assumptions we might not consciously endorse. One of those habits is referring to adult women as “girls.”
In many organisations it appears in casual ways: “the girls in the office,” “the girls on the team,” or “I’ll ask the girls to organise that.” It is rarely said with the intention to diminish anyone. Often it is framed as friendly or informal. But language shapes how we perceive roles, authority, and competence, and small habits can reinforce larger cultural patterns.
The term “girl” refers to a child. When used to describe adult women in professional environments, it subtly shifts how maturity and authority are framed. The equivalent substitution rarely happens in the same way for men. While people might occasionally say “the boys,” it tends to appear jokingly or in informal settings rather than in reference to professional responsibility or capability. More commonly, adult men are simply referred to as men.
These patterns matter because language helps establish norms. Titles and descriptors signal who is taken seriously, who holds authority, and who is seen as fully professional. When adult women are routinely described using language associated with childhood, it can unintentionally undermine that perception. It places women slightly outside the default category of “professional adult.”
This is not about policing language or assuming bad intent. Most people who use the phrase “the girls” are doing so out of familiarity or habit. But leadership cultures are shaped by patterns that often go unexamined. Changing language is one small way of shifting those patterns.
There is also a broader cultural context. Women have historically had to work harder to establish credibility and authority in professional environments. Research on workplace communication consistently shows that language influences perceptions of competence and leadership. Words that signal maturity, expertise, and authority matter, particularly in environments where women are still underrepresented in senior roles.
Breaking the habit is simple but meaningful. Instead of referring to “the girls,” we can refer to “the team,” “the women,” or simply use people’s roles or names. These alternatives reinforce professionalism and remove an unnecessary layer of diminishment.
For many women, the issue is not that the word “girl” is always offensive. In social settings, friendship groups often use it comfortably and affectionately. The difference is context. In professional environments, language carries signals about status and capability. Small linguistic habits can either reinforce or challenge the assumptions we bring into those spaces.
Workplace culture is shaped not only by policies and strategies but also by everyday behaviour. The words we choose are part of that. Breaking the habit of calling women “girls” is a small shift, but it reflects a broader commitment to treating colleagues as the professionals they are.
Respectful language does not need to be complicated. Often it simply means calling adults what they are: adults.
Dr Emma Burrows 