The inspiring article by Sara Sander in the August WAC newsletter made it clear that businesses are demanding better writing skills from university graduates. The title of the report by the National Commission on Writing cited by Dean Sander says it all: Writing: A Ticket to Work…. Or a Ticket Out. It’s part of our job to make that ticket a one-way pass to corporate acceptance for Kaplan students.
As students prepare for the world of work, however, they get caught up in corporate jargon or “business speak” that is quickly overflowing into everyday communication. This practice can be confusing, especially for non-native speakers, and somewhat annoying. One thing that instructors at Kaplan can do is help students inoculate themselves from this epidemic.
My initial exposure to corporate jargon came 25 years ago when I reported in for my first assignment as a writing consultant; it happened to be with a federal government agency. A nice man, who in every other way appeared perfectly normal, introduced me to the project this way: “The reason you’re here is that our MYOP is about to sunset and I’ve been tasked with re-tooling the input documents.” I wasn’t sure if it was a joke or a test of some kind. I did work on that Multiple Year Operations Plan (MYOP) and helped put a new one in place before sunset (expiry), but the experience really was an eye-opener.
So what should our students do about business jargon? If they don’t use it, they may be considered outsiders or not ITL (in the loop), which could, conceivably turn out to be a CLM (career limiting move).
A good middle ground to teach students is that business speak is just that—jargon that might be okay in a business setting if it is expected, but that it is no more appropriate in the real world than casual language is in an academic paper or locker room talk at a family brunch. The danger is that students get enamored with this “cool” talk and the jargon spills over into their normal vocabulary.
So what are some of the current junk words and phrases of corporate life? Some of the old favorites have been around for decades. Who doesn’t remember being asked “why write utilize when you can substitute use or facilitate instead of help”? A recent survey by Oxford University identified literally as the new #1 most irritating expression in England, usurping basically for the first time. Another prime offender: I, personally. This tautology was recently described by BBC commentator John Humphreys as “the linguistic equivalent of having chips with rice.”
Among the least favorite examples of business jargon in the UK, according to another survey taken last year, were thinking outside the box, touch base, at the end of the day, going forward, ducks in a row, heads up, bring to the table and pushing the envelope (Simpson, 2008). Wow! Those are so, like, yesterday’s news! We forward-thinking folks in America, here on the bleeding edge, are so far past this level!
Business-speak is so deeply ingrained in our culture that MBA courses for overseas students often provide a list of corporate jargon expressions that students should recognize. The result is that non-English speaking students begin peppering their writing with these expressions, but often use them incorrectly or out of context.
So what are our own worst offenders on this side of the Atlantic? The problem is knowing where to start. A paragraph like this isn’t unusual:
It’s true that we have been negatively impacted by economic factors during the past quarter and have had to undergo a paradigm shift, but our management has been proactive and played hardball in the damage control department, simultaneously applying best practices to pluck the low-hanging fruit and delivering client-focused solutions that give us win-win, results-driven, value-added bottom lines. That mission will continue into the foreseeable future if we drill down our B2B strengths, adopt best- of- breed synergies on a 24/7 continuum and keep our true north matrix firmly in place.
Ok, maybe that’s just a tad over the top, but I’ve seen paragraphs that are almost that bad!
Some of the examples of business speak in modern use come from legitimate sources, and some may eventually become as much a part of the language as baby boomers or Gen-x. Many of the attempts to find the next new thing in terminology are pretty amusing. Take the IT invention for any information product that isn’t electronic—treeware; it means books, magazines or newspapers. Very cute! Another favorite of mine: people-based channels, which means the few remaining non-electronic ways of selling things—in other words, stores. Busy cubicle dwellers eat al desko rather than going out for lunch. And then there are the many colorful new words that mean “fired” without saying “fired” like Bangalored (as in “the entire department was Bangalored last month”) and decruited (used especially for C-suite execs meaning CFO’s, CEO’s, COO’s, etc). In fact, some of the pop culture expressions have a built-in self-esteem factor for us over-the-hill types like when we recognize a marketing campaign that has jumped the shark or when we get saluted on the Unit 10 Discussion Board by a student saying you’re the bomb. Oh come on—admit it; it feels good!
More annoying, though, and worthy of a margin note every time, are the terms that arise from the “verbification” of the language. This term refers to the habit of taking perfectly good nouns and turning them into verbs, a practice which has become a specialty of modern American business. Should any student of Kaplan University ever be encouraged, or even allowed to incent a client or incentivize an employee? Should he or she be permitted to vision an outcome or even be anywhere near where visioning occurs? Especially in mixed company? Tasking is questionable, and actioning is almost as annoying as its cohort, actionable. Operationalize positively boggles the mind and transitioning has a mystical undertone that is surely not intended. Then there’s ballpark, as in “Can you ballpark me an estimate.” I am, like, sooo not cool with that word!
So if everyone within a given organization understands what these terms mean, why are they so bad? For exactly the same reason that the language extremes at the other end of the hierarchy are bad! Because they stigmatize you as a certain type of person, based simply on the language you use. Instead of being classified (probably unfairly) as an illiterate dork, now you’re being classified (equally unfairly) as a corporate clone. Our students are strong, independent, intelligent individuals, not dorks and not clones or robots. Think about it! If your boss at a business meeting answers a question of yours by saying “let’s dialogue that issue offline,” meaning let’s talk about that after the meeting, how does that make you feel about him or her? Warm and fuzzy? Does that person strike you as an inspiring, compassionate, and wise leader? Or as a slick, superficial shmuck? I rest my case.
Another reason for the current heightened concern about business jargon is, oddly enough, the economic collapse of the past two years. We, as Americans, were forced to admit that we believed all those Wall Street weasel words, and we allowed the corporate execs enough wiggle room to bring down the entire global economy. From now on, let’s be clear exactly what we mean, at every level, when we write or speak, and let’s be particularly careful when we’re involved in business. In politics, as well, there’s a definite move towards more accurate and precise language that won’t hide so much double speak. There are many of us, for example, who wish we never had to face the true meaning of collateral damage or preemptive strike.
Maybe we have to learn to live with the least noxious of these new words. Maybe there’s a place for onboarding and repurpose and stakeholders and deliverables, if only because these words summarize rather neatly something that would have taken more words than one to explain. After all, language is meant to evolve and change. So even if these words are not great English, and will annoy the purists, at least they’re not the worst offenders; they merely clutter the landscape.
At the same time, let’s resist, and help our students to resist, the real excesses of business jargon that they will probably encounter in the corporate world, and to recognize what they are truly doing if they’re already out there and find themselves slipping into these hackneyed and annoying usages.
And now, if you’ll excuse me, my mission-critical item for tonight is some face time with my favorite treeware, preferably al bedo.
Simpson, A. (2008,). ‘Thinking outside the box’ is most
despised business jargon. Telegraph.co.uk, Retrieved
September 19, 2009 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
newstopics/howaboutthat/3532338/Thinking-outside-the-box-
is-most-despisedbusiness-jargon.html.
Did you know…
Barbara Russell is a licensed contractor and rebuilt a home in Boston that was named New England Dream House? Check it out at www.CohassetreamHouse.com. Barbara is a Composition Professor in the School of Business and Management at Kaplan University.
[This article was originally published in our September, 2009 issue.]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment