Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Corporate Life

edited November 2010 in Not Sports Related
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.
«1

Comments

  • It's not just you Dave it grates my soul too.

    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.
  • Get your Blackberry to make an appointment with my Orange, and we can do some blue sky thinking with the stakeholders whilst all wearing hi-viz jackets and plastic goggles.

    In the words of Alan Partridge......."this country"
  • As to point 1. I would much prefer to refer to senior execs by their first name than by the old fashioned title and surname.

    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!
  • DRF I think Dave's point is that in a big corp some div will refer to "Andrew" and expect you to know they are talking about the Director when there are dozens of people with that name working there.

    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.
  • [cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]DRF I think Dave's point is that in a big corp some div will refer to "Andrew" and expect you to know they are talking about the Director when there are dozens of people with that name working there.

    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.
    Yes I get that, what I am saying is if it is a choice between "Tony" and Mr Blair I would prefer to have to call him Tony.
  • [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]As to point 1. I would much prefer to refer to senior execs by their first name than by the old fashioned title and surname.

    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!

    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.
  • [cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]As to point 1. I would much prefer to refer to senior execs by their first name than by the old fashioned title and surname.

    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!

    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.
    Yep - that irritates the arsehole out of me. It's as annoying as people you barely know attempting to try and bridge the intimacy gap between you by referring to their friends, relatives and work acquaintances (who you've never met and are not likely to) by their first names, thus trying to confer a level of familiarity between the two of you that doesn't exist.

    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.
  • what irriates me most is a lot of companies become management top heavy, and these twonks spend most of the time feathering their nests and politicing rather than actually doing much beneficial to the company, whilst reaping the rewards.
  • [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]DRF I think Dave's point is that in a big corp some div will refer to "Andrew" and expect you to know they are talking about the Director when there are dozens of people with that name working there.

    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.
    Yes I get that, what I am saying is if it is a choice between "Tony" and Mr Blair I would prefer to have to call him Tony.

    I'd prefer w***er
  • Has anyone else recently been made aware that their Life can be made more complete by the use of Operational Excellence tools?

    Somehow I remained immune for decades, but they got me at last.
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]As to point 1. I would much prefer to refer to senior execs by their first name than by the old fashioned title and surname.

    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!

    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.

    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"!
  • [cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]
    actually go on christian sounds very wanky!

    not if you say it in church
  • or in the colleseum.
  • lol very good!

    dont want to go off topic sorry.
  • Before I retired I was a personnel director and hated the advent of the HR Director, I guess I was seen as a dinosaur as I would not bow to modern speak, I agree with all those annoyances that have been mentioned and will add

    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
  • [cite]Posted By: lancashire lad[/cite]Before I retired I was a personnel director and hated the advent of the HR Director, I guess I was seen as a dinosaur as I would not bow to modern speak, I agree with all those annoyances that have been mentioned and will add

    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'.
  • Agree with a lot of what you say but the fact is that modern companies are generally vastly more productive, meritocratic and innovative than they were in the past.

    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!
  • Modern management speak is excruciatingly annoying but again, there's nothing new under the sun.

    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
  • I really couldn't get into the modern "corporate-speak", which is why I decided to set up on my own (that and the fact that nobody will employ you when you're over 50).
  • was fortunate enough to give all that up a couple of years ago but I'd add a couple to the list:

    - 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
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Jints[/cite]Agree with a lot of what you say but the fact is that modern companies are generally vastly more productive, meritocratic and innovative than they were in the past.

    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!

    No problem accepting that modern corporations are more productive etc, but do you believe that is due to or despite the business speak?
    [cite]Posted By: Jints[/cite]Modern management speak is excruciatingly annoying but again, there's nothing new under the sun.

    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"

    [url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm]Orwell[/url]

    I'm also decidely OK with the evolution of language, but that doesn't mean that all change is good. Innit?
  • You need to wise up open the kimono and push the envelope, get some blue sky thinking
  • Dont bother me if people want to speak like a Gus Hedges clone.
    Just jump in the sand pit with them and get the team cooking on napalm.
  • [cite]Posted By: charltonkeston[/cite]Dont bother me if people want to speak like a Gus Hedges clone.
    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.
  • One of my clients (customers?) is a Certified 6Sigma Black Belt
    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!!
  • This thread is a bit 'last year's Mondeo' - Once your company has employed a 'Pan European Knowledge Disseminator' then you know you're fighting a losing battle.
  • Best Practice - that's a good one! I've seen jobs advertised using that term, but surely nobody uses Worst Practice?
  • [cite]Posted By: bibble[/cite]One of my clients (customers?) is a Certified 6Sigma Black Belt
    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!!
    Ummmm...The private sector IS corporate, bibble
  • [cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
    No problem accepting that modern corporations are more productive etc, but do you believe that is due to or despite the business speak?

    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.
  • On the plus side, when I was at HSBC (graphic design Studio Manager) we all had to do time sheets accounting for our time, which was OK when you were busy, but when it was quiet, and redundancy was looming it became a pain, so we all had meetings with each other, as long as the time tallied it was OK, we even booked the meeting rooms, but just didnt turn up, 5 hours a day in pretend meetings, logged on the timesheets, all the top brass were happy that you were doing your hours, what an utter waste of time becasue if you were pro-active (sorry) and tried to generate some work (re-designing tired designs) they didnt want to know!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!