Slashdot Mirror
Attack of the Corporate Weasel Words
theodp writes "Does it bother you that churches have a Mission Statement touting their Core Values? That even the CIA has a Vision? In his book Death Sentences: How Clichés, Weasel Words and Management-Speak are Strangling Public Language and in this Newsweek interview, Australian author Don Watson argues it's time to protest the mind-numbing business jargon that infests our schools, churches and political speech. Examples that people have sent to him can be found on Watson's website."
We are in a culture where people need to specialize in order to succeed. Now there is only so much specialization that can be achieved. So of course buzz words are needed to justify the niche marketing of... business, goods, and even employment specialties.
My sunday newspaper has Dilbert in the frontpage. I remember the days when a kid could wake up sunday morning and have only Garfield and other innocent comics.
Now they are well trained politically, corporately for the next generation of work environment. My neighbors kids always do Dilbert skits. WTF is the world coming to when 10 year olds immitate managers and chief execs for fun?!
One time I spoke out very strongly about management speak. Synergy this, leverage that. Buzzword Bingo is not amusing when you see that someone can gain power by saying absolutely nothing at all.
The counter argument was that it's the jargon of management. Just as programmers talk about arrays in a different sense than a layman, or maybe 'threading' for another example. Buzzwords isn't a problem, it's just the language of management.
I think that's EXACTLY the problem. Managers don't talk to themselves. They lead with ideas, and understand the problems of others to help organize solutions. If nobody understands what the fuck they are saying, it's not management!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I have a small business. I am realizing very quickly that success is often determined by your ability to communicate. (I'm also married, and this rule applies equally well to that.)
If you can't clearly communicate to a client or customer, you can find yourself losing business very quickly. If the client thinks they're getting one thing and you deliver another, that's usually a breakdown on your part. The same goes for clients that don't understand what is required of them.
Clear and concise gets the job done, makes everyone more comfortable, and takes less time than thick marketing copy or 'vision statements.'
In my still-idealistic view of the world, that's how it works. I realize that some companies rely on obfuscation and meaningless text to confuse their customers into thinking they're getting one thing when the proposal says another. Or to lock people into contracts that they didn't understand (ie, zero interest for 12 months).
But those aren't honest. And they don't encourage repeat business, referrals, or customer satisfaction. So in my mind, they don't promote success.
I'm looking at writing a mission statement for my own company, and the more I research it the more I appreciate existing ones.
/shrug.
It does baffle me that churches have so much money, and I am a little afraid that God (TM) didn't intend it to be quite that way. I'm sorry (I have agnostic tendencies), if God exists I surely don't think (s)he intended for any church to be large enough to be considered a business. In fact it disgusts me that here in the United States many of the local religious figureheads drive nicer cars, own bigger houses, and smoke fatter cigars than myself. Men of God? Nay! Men of themselves.
That said, I appreciate that (privately owned) schools have missions statements, and I appreciate that they are trying to serve their target. I think that every state-funded school in the state of (insert your region) should share a common mission statement. I think its also in their best interest to fulfill their goals as described by that mission statement.
It has gotten out of hand. There was a time when Not-for-profit really meant Not-for-profit, and I see these "charitable" organizations seeming to crawl forward with beady-green-dollar-sign-eyes.
Anyway. Mission statements are a wonderful invention and critical in this world known as capitalism. Bloody hell, though... why does the local minister drive a Lexus?
Deja Vu
n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
I don't know which came first, jargon-talk, or politically correct speech, but somewhere in the last thirty years, speech and writing has become more about saying something with empahis on:
Maybe, though I get slaughtered sometimes, that's why I like slashdot... slashdotters give as good as they take. And usually say what they mean, or at least try. Case in point, how simple could a mission statement (hate that term) be other than "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." be?
I jumped off the politcally correct band wagon years ago when two "corrections" juxtaposed themselves:
You all can fight back by using candid, frank, and direct language. But, you'll pay a price. Utlimately though I think you'll find it much more satisfying.
Just the other day I was ranting to coworkers on how this lingo gets into everyday work.
I was writing up a report and I was including the phrase "Solutions", but I forget what I was solving. Can't I just fix something anymore? Why do I have to deliver a solution?
Issues and solutions, issues and solutions. I with I had an old-fashioned problem. I'd probably just fix it!
Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
Actually, you'll never get rid of them, until you get rid of weasels. The human kind, I have no grudge against the kind that weigh less than 10 lbs.
The purpose is to present an image to the casual observer. Words are selected for their appearance--"pro active", "standards compliant", "reorganization", etc. sound like action, consistency, and controlled change.
But they mean nothing. That's intentional. The corporation does not want to offer its detractors any ammunition for future attacks. "You said that..." Well, actually, we didn't say anything of the sort. Did we?
Do you seriously expect some organization to give you a clear commitment to anything without there being some significant benefit to them for doing so?
It's inconsistent with the corporation's fiduciary responsibility (look that one up, it's a real thing) to act in that manner. That is to say, if a corporate leader does things because "it's the right thing to do for the world/the customers/the industry", rather than "it makes more money for the stockholders and exposes the corporation to less risk", then they violate that responsibility.
At best, that violation is unethical. At worst, it's criminal.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
What really gets to me is when it's not even based upon the actual words, but upon the "fear someone might mishear." I'm sure everyone's heard about the politician who got lambasted for using the word niggardly. Then, in a play I was in last year, someone objected to an actor who had the line, "Don't get your knickers in a knot," because she was afraid someone would mishear the word, "knickers." *sigh* And it gets to you after a while. I actually find my self balking for a second before using "black" as a personal descriptor, so many people taking offense, seeing it as labelling.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ is another great guide to writing. It lives its message: the book says to be short and to the point, and so the book is actually short and to the point.It goes from the basics like joining sentences to the principles of composition and clear writing. Anyone who wants to be a writer, whether as a journalist, novelist, or academic, needs to pick up a copy.
I can't believe that almost got through senior year of college without ever having read this book, which is ridiculous- there's this idea in America that you don't need to learn the rules and basics of your craft anymore, whether its art or writing or whatever- well, that idea is bullshit. I'm all for breaking loose and breaking all the rules, but it helps to know the rules in the first place. And for every one Jack Kerouac who can write brilliant drug-fuelled free-form prose, there are a dozen people who really need to pick up Strunk and White, and Orwell's _Politics and the English Language_ Essay and learn to string two words together (I'm firmly in the second camp).
I used to be a mid-level manager. I hate listening to people talking about "forces" (did you mean soldiers?) and "resources" (did you mean employees? workers?). I agree with Watson that this kind of talk is deeply dehumanizing.
So at a monthly meeting, when my boss asked me if I needed more resources to complete a project, I said, "I don't think I need any more coal or lumber for this project. I could use some more people though." I think I nearly got fired that day.
It has been shown in psychology studies that people judge speakers who use longer sentences and who are difficult to understand as more intelligent than people who speak concisely. Especially in the case of authority figures, we tend to assume that the fault lays within our selves for not understanding their novel phrases or convoluted sentence structure. Like the parable of the "Emperor's New Clothes" people are afraid to admit they understand what the authority figure is talking about lest they be mocked by others.
This phenomenon creates an incentive to create "management speak." People will be less likely to question you if you confuse them. People won't complain about being confused because they fear being called stupid.
You might find this an interesting read: The Trouble with Dilbert. A snippet: