Slashdot Mirror
The 69 Words GM Employees Can Never Say
bizwriter (1064470) writes "General Motors put together its take on a George Carlin list of words you can't say. Engineering employees were shown 69 words and phrases that were not to be used in emails, presentations, or memos. They include: defect, defective, safety, safety related, dangerous, bad, and critical. You know, words that the average person, in the context of the millions of cars that GM has recalled, might understand as indicative of underlying problems at the company. Oh, terribly sorry, 'problem' was on the list as well."
That's about the best MBA-speak I've ever seen.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Exactly. The Thiokol engineers knew that the air temperature at the launch pad was below the lower range operating temperature of the O Rings which was 40 degrees (or 50 degrees for the system as a whole). The O rings themselves were certified down to 40 degrees but the engineers were bullied by management who wanted proof that the system would fail rather than the other way around and then when the engineers couldn't prove that it would fail they were overruled. I think the comments that it would be "away from goodness" was just a really impotent way of saying something like "there was a potentially increased risk that the rocket would explode that can not be quantified because of lack of data", but saying the rocket might explode in such blunt language was probably a quick ticket to being fired shortly afterwards and the engineers probably knew that.
Language matters and the fact that GM was more worried about getting sued than about engineers accurately conveying concerns over safety is damning. GM is supposedly a new company after bankruptcy. Is it?
Actually, Apple has a set of forbidden words. Macs don't crash or hang, they "unexpectedly quit" or "stop responding." Things are not "supported", they are "compatible." However nothing is incompatible--they just don't work with Macs.
This is +5 insightful?
Easy to say when you are not the one at the pointy end of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.
Yeah, the lawsuit makes it even easier. But as a potential customer I too prefer companies that don't feel the need to censor their own employees from talking about the products they make.
Let me make that clear: A healthy company that makes good products should be confidant that their employees can bitch and moan about whatever failings they can find with the product and still know that the product is well made, or at least that the problems have been dealt with correctly.
If the public comments of the employee are brought up in court, the company should be able to justify those comments:
"Yes your honor, Mr. Bob called the transmission of leaky cock-sucking sonnovabitch, and that falls in line with our public announcement on April 3rd about the a potential recall and memos to our dealers. There are problems and we dealt with them"
As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing. And I don't know too many engineers who are up to date on their product liability law.
They're the engineer working on the problem, they are THEE expert on the subject. The company is liable for problems with the product. Not just problems that are found and proven in court, they are liable for ALL problems. The fact that the engineer might show where those problems are just brings such things to light. If you're operating with the presumption that a lot of shit and crap product will simply never be discovered, then you're running a scam and lying to your customers.
Fact is that NO lawyer worth his retainer would agree with you.
A lawyer wouldn't agree that companies trying to cover up their failings are shit? What?
I think you're trying to say that no lawyer would want engineers saying anything to anybody. That makes sense as it makes their job easier. If a lawyer ran the business, all communication would go through the legal department. But it does nothing to give me faith in the output of a company. Indeed, the deeper the lawyers have their hooks into a company, the less I trust said company.
There are VERY good reasons why companies tend to only let a few, carefully selected people who know what they are doing speak for the company.
You're right, but only from the perspective of the quarterly profits and legal fees. And that dominates our corporate culture. And so every company has an iron curtain between the makers and the users.
There are also very good reasons to let the engineers speak freely. It makes for a better product when the product managers know that anything they try and rush out the door will quickly come to light and reflect poorly on them. It lets the engineers have a bit more pride in what they do. It let's engineers make the thing that customers want. And it would make customers have more faith in the product and they'd BUY MORE. Unless, of course, the product is shit.