Management Speak Means We Lose Sight Of The Bigger Picture.

I was reading an article on the BBC website, in which Professor Richard Pring, of Oxford University speaks out about the increased use of management speak in schools.
Article

In my view, he's quite right - but there's been a huge rise in managers under Labour, so what else can we expect?

The one thing that managers excel at, is creating phrases and speech patterns to confuse people who are "outsiders" - thereby creating an "elite" of managers who communicate outside the language of non-management.

Having worked for many years in management, I have been as guilty as anyone - but here's a few of my favourites:
* ballpark figure
* be proactive not reactive
* bring it to the table
* mission critical
* move the goalposts
* think outside the box
* blue-sky thinking
* pushing the envelope
* there is no 'I' in team
* knowledge base
* core competencies
* win-win situation
* client focus
* deliverables
* incentivise
* take it to the next level


There's been a whole industry built up around management speak - consultancy firms being one of the biggest culprits, as they seek to justify sometimes huge fees, by introducing "buzzwords" which basically mean nothing.

I am of the opinion, that the use of management speak focusses attention on area's which are not necessarily conducive to he best interests of an organisation - in the instance in the article, education.

Phrases like "performance management" and "personal improvement plan" have no place in the education system and cause confusion, meaning that people may lose sight of the bigger picture i.e. the child and their education.

We see this as well with social services, with talk of "inclusivity" and "facilitators" - it's all gobbledegook, designed to deflect away from issues and protect status and jobs.

Imagine how much could get done, if there weren't whole PANELS of people, with nothing better to do than invent buzzwords and meaningless phrases.

It really is a lot of crap isn't it!

I remember when I worked in a call centre, the team I was in would have a word for the shift. It could be anything from Hippopotamus to business critical.

I managed to say business critical 22 times in one conversation, the people around me were in fits. I have no idea how I kept a straight face/voice.

Also we used to take breaks for Hydration management - getting the coffee.

And air conditioning adjustments - popping out for a smoke.

So I think it kind of works both ways, the management have their silly words and the gen pop have theirs too.

Another awesome reason for being self employed, don't have to listen to anyones crap, but my own!

MonKey

[edit on 18/2/08 by ChiKeyMonKey]

Funny story,
we had a team manager who was VERY gung-ho and a little power crazy,so my job (and another manager) was to sit her down and have a chat with her about how she was handling her team - sort of an attitude adjustment......

We were having the meeting, and she kept focussing on the phrase "there is no I in team", getting louder every time she said it.

Patience wore thin, and the last time she said it I promptly replied "and soon you'll have no F in team" - the other manager cracked up, and she went very red.

She left for another job shortly after......

Every field has it's jargon and it is a favorite topic in sociology how jargon functions as boundary maintenance, separating the outsiders from the insiders.

I even knew a supervisor who used an applicants use of jargon as a criterion for employment and promotion.

I always thought he was a fraud for that very reason and as it turned out I was right.

The minute a person starts using jargon the first thing anyone should say is, "Speak English!"

Jargon is good for informal speech as a sort of shorthand, but because much of jargon is based on analogy, meanings can drift with time and from person to person.

Going through the list you provided, budski, I recognize some that have left me scratching my head for years.

"Ballpark figure" should make sense to most people, but "thinking outside the box" can be a little confusing if you don't know what it means exactly to do so.

The concrete interpretation is not very meaningful and the abstract meaning is not intuitive.

It's only when you've seen the little diagram that goes with the term that it suddenly makes sense and I only saw that demonstration a few months ago.

Imagine how I felt when a dysthymic judge ordered me to go back to my office and come up with some more ideas regarding a case by "thinking outside the box."

It would have been much more meaningful if she had just said, let's get creative with this case and come up with some unique approaches to the problem.

When a judge gives an order that has the force of law, that is not the time to be struggling with abstractions.

Returning to the article, the salient feature is that the subject is education. If teachers can't speak or write in concise, comprehensible language, how can they teach kids to do so?

If they can't describe a problem in concise, comprehensible terms, how can they even pretend to solve that problem.

This problem goes further than professions however and has permeated every part of our culture, as the use of the term "Orwellian" implies. However, the use of the term "Orwellian" is also a perfect example of the problem.

If everyone has read 1984, fine, but for those who have not, they're not going to get it.

The thing is that using abstractions is a good way to say more with fewer words, but in the important matters such as teaching kids or reuniting families, "saying what you mean and meaning what you say" is the best and most efficient way to accomplish difficult goals, because people don't have to rely on their interpretations of those abstractions and "everyone is on the same page", so to speak.

See how easy it is to "fall into the trap?"

This is what political correctness is all about--using words to obfuscate instead of to clarify.

And that is what we should always be asking ourselves: Do our words inform or confuse?

[edit on 2008/2/18 by GradyPhilpott]

Well, I suppose I could author some synergies and get all my ducks in a row by utilising pro-active leverages and incentivising actionable interpersonal solutions.

This would enable me to interface with other enablers of user generated content ecosystems and provide impact statements designated as empowering to bench marking, instead of juggling frogs and weasels.



What complete cobblers - can anyone make sense of this, apart from me?

There's a lolipop for anyone who translates! virtual of course

[edit on 18/2/2008 by budski]

I and a colleague had great fun playing bull# bingo at all management meetings, no-one else could understand why we would be in hysterics after the meetings ended.

www.lovelyjane.btinternet.co.uk...

A very welcome distraction at times to some pretty meaningless meetings.

Edit to correct link. (I hope)

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Freeborn]

The really bad part, is that you have to join in the bullplop just to get yourself heard.

And if you harbour any ambition, embrace it totally.

Sad really, but what can you do.........