Probably only irritating to old-timers such as myself, but I sometimes wonder what our forefathers would make of the modern corporate world that we live in.
Here's my start to the list of concepts, ways of working and corporate code that many of us are expected to adopt when we cross over the office line:
1) Senior executives in the organisation are referred to only by their first name. So it's 'John' this and 'Andrew' that ... as if some demi-god status is being recognised by the award a 'mono-monicker'. For me, only South American footballers with long hair are allowed to have only one name
2) Groups and departments are 'down-sized' and staff are 'let go'
3) Mission statements. Evidently written by committee, so they end up looking like a string of hackneyed phrases designed to 'cover all bases' and ensure 'transparency' and to provide a 'contract of commitment to the customer' ... while ensuring that 'we continue to value people (our greatest asset)'
I could go on.
0
Comments
Buy in. Going forward. Value add. Human Capital. Feedback.
Perfectly good English language before these berks started perverting it in an (unsuccessful) attempt to conceal the fact they are completely incompetent and do not know what they are talking about.
In the words of Alan Partridge......."this country"
In my first job the chief exec was Mrs Hoodless and everyone else was called by their first name. If you ever refered to her as Elizabeth then she gave you a look to kill and a some point later that day you would be 'spoken to' by the HR manager - called Sarah.
That is proper awarding of demi god status. Long live the first name!
Office-speak and mission statements do suck through!
eg Think of the way Harriet Harman would cringingly refer to blair as "Tony" and it is usually used in the same tone and has the same gut churning effect on the listener.
I'm not talking about the occasions when you address these people ... I'm talking about when these top executives are being mentioned in meetings at which they are not present. By using the single name bit it seems to imply that the speaker is on intimate terms with the senior executive ... and heaven help you if you don't know who they are talking about.
Another pet hate in the corporate world is nepotism. I've lost count of the number of people I've encountered who were absolute turd at their jobs but kept them because they were related to the MD, or knocking off someone at board level.
I'd prefer w***er
Somehow I remained immune for decades, but they got me at last.
Is it like when i shout go on Christian... actually go on christian sounds very wanky! I occasionally slip up and use their first names, and i know its a bug bear of someone on here just cant remember who"!
dont want to go off topic sorry.
people e-mailing each other when they could stroll across the room and talk.
As for top heavy management the Lass is a nurse in an NHS hospital up here and you should hear her talk about the number of "grey suits" that proliferate the corridors of power.
But then it's not a problem just a challenge
Sounds like the NHS needs to be 'lean sigma-ed'.
Reading "Diary of a Nobody" at the moment at funnily enough exactly the same complaint is made by Pooter about the over-familarity of young clerks to their superiors. This is the 1890s!
Here's Orwell in 1946
"Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes"
Orwell
- it seemed to be more important latterly to do anything rather than do the right thing. People seemed to get a string of promotions out of initiatives that mostly failed (it was in banking though!)
- endless overt wordsmithing of the sentences at the top of powerpoint slides so they 'told the story'. When did senior execs become so thick that they can't understand a simple heading
No problem accepting that modern corporations are more productive etc, but do you believe that is due to or despite the business speak?
I'm also decidely OK with the evolution of language, but that doesn't mean that all change is good. Innit?
Just jump in the sand pit with them and get the team cooking on napalm.
I was at a training session involving a number of pensioners and a guy teaching them about a website authoring package and "teacher" said "this area is a sandpit" - the look of bewilderment on the faces of the "students" was priceless! I had to translate for them.
WOT-UTTER-BOLLOX-THIS-IS!
Also what is Best Practice? And why is it always changing?
I worked in the private sector for years, then went corporate for 4 years, now back to the private sector.
I get more work done now, 'cos I just get on with my job and dont need a 'course' on health and safety when I make a cup of char!!
I was referring more to your other annoyances. I think informality and the reduction of deference are directly linked to more meritocratic businesses.
As for whether business speak has much effect, I'm not sure. I guess it depends on what you mean by the term. Email and word processing have changed communication so thoroughly that it's hard to seperate changes in language from the medium in which they are expressed. There are loads of clihes which most of us would agree are meaningless and hopeless but personally I rarely come across people proposing to run ideas up a flagpost etc except in an ironic way. On the other hand I do see people use jargon and poor language all the time. Use fo the passive over the active seems particularly prevalant. Because my job is helping expert witnesses write good reports I'm particularly attuned to this. Incidentally, while the standfard of written English is generally very poor it doesn't seem to vary according to age. A 60 year old senior partner in a firm of chartered surveyors is just as bad as on 30 year old associate planner.
I don't know if it's true or not but someone once told me that Mars required all internal meetings to be held standing up and all internal memos to be less than one side in length. If I was MD of a big company, that would be my first act.