Really, though, this isn’t a satisfactory explanation at all.
Oh, ok, that settles it then. I mean these terms don’t have non-jargon synonyms, and plenty of people understand them and find them useful to use. But dude says that’s not a good explanation, with no reasons at all, so that’s that. Let’s go back to communicating those concepts using whole sentences instead of simple phrases.
Also, the only example the author gives doesn’t even have any office-speak in it. Maybe “direction of travel”? It’s hard to follow because it’s poorly written, not because it’s office speak. Even then it would probably be a useful paragraph if it didn’t have the context deliberately removed.
Precisely what I came in to say. I work at a global company with over 100K employees (over 10K just on my campus) and in the 10 years I’ve been here I’ve seen the way language like this seemingly pops into existence then spreads as everyone tries to demonstrate they are “a part of it”.
It’s no different than teenagers gravitating toward the same slang terms for “cool” or “lame”, just a way to signal to the members (and outsiders) of a group that you are a part of it. Especially words/phrases that are dropped by a high-level member. The underlings then adopt/spread it quickly… seemingly as a dual “brown nose/wanna take your place one day” subconscious strategy.
There’s a culture of professional managers, and I don’t like it. Much of the “office speak” under discussion is an expression of that culture; using it expresses identification with that culture. I don’t want to be identified with that culture.
I was going to cite that one specifically in my rant a moment ago. I remember not ever hearing it as a noun 5-6 years ago. Now it’s in every meeting. I’ve always hated it, not just for its grammatical inaccuracy, but because “request” or “requirement” are better words to convey the meaning.
I’ve seen it used that way, and as a synonym for question. I’ve found it aesthetically jarring, but come to think of it, it’s usually a stressed syllable, giving it a natural emphasis, while question is a trochee.
That’s a pretty false dichotomy. Corporate culture is invasive, not necessarily by virtue of a cabal, but by a broad resonance combined with a culture-wide reverence, bordering on worship, for the accomplishments of large corporations. This language is steeped necessary corporate values, like efficiency-above-all-else, strong hierarchy and myopic focus on easily measured results. This way of thinking is insidious, and can have an adverse effect on the rest of life.
Yes, you do have to agree, at the outset of the article, that corporate culture is soul-crushing in order to accept that this particular jargon brings that soul-crushiness to life, but that’s not a stretch that’s going to pull any muscles…
The one that bugged me (and this is probably a techspeak thing) was ‘ping’, as in send someone an IM. Having a network background using that term bugged me for a while because ping was two way communication and people used it to refer to specifically just the one message - ‘I pinged him’, not ‘we had a ping’.
I’ve since gotten over it because it’s completely impossible to stay upset at something that petty.
Workers adopt the language because they want to keep getting a paycheck. In some cases, because they want to raise, too. But you dont get too far if every time a suit comes to you with their stupid, empty bullshit language you take good care to tell them “START SPEAKING ENGLISH YOU GOD DAMNED CRETIN”
That being said, many of these are jargon in the same way jargon is used in other fields. Sure, diversifying paradigms for cross-collaboration with better synergy is laughable but many of the terms have specific stresses or meanings, although it comes off weird sounding. I have to admit that ‘do the needful’ has grown on me a bit. I find it charmingly provincial.
Yes, that’s just how it seems to work in the company I work at (about 1/10 the size of yours). A couple years ago one of our execs glommed on to “cadence”. Next thing you knew, you couldn’t read or hear a sentence that didn’t feature the word. Fortunately it’s faded over time.
What’s worse? I was planning an after-school club, so I asked my 7-year-old what he thought of my proposed lesson. He said: “well, the first thing you’ve got to say is what are your learning objectives.” I only wish I was kidding. Ofsted (UK school certification body) language for the teachers has crept right into the lesson plans. My kids talk about “goal attainment” and “measurable improvement.”
Seriously, though. When referring to a bunch of stuff that a project is going to produce – say, a report for the funder, a scientific paper, a prototype and a piece of software… what is the proper noun to describe all of those things? I hate “deliverable” but at least it catches everything in one word. Suggestions?
This isn’t worse than the phenomenon cited in the article, it’s an example of it. The obsession with measurability, standardization and efficiency isn’t leaking out of education, it’s leaking in. The fact that kids are speaking this way shows that corporate jargon/thinking is trickling all the way down to kids, using schools as a vehicle.
