Think of overworked words like: 'core', 'key', 'initiative', 'engage', 'underpinning', 'processes', 'issues', 'deliverables', 'drivers', 'implement', 'focus', 'outputs', 'engage', 'strategic', 'operational', 'integrated', 'prioritised', 'scenario', 'upskilling', 'commitment' and 'sustainable'.
Worse still, this impersonal language is infiltrating the English of politics, bureaucracy, education, sport and the arts - public language, to such an extent that clarity is lost and the real meaning of the communication is confused or obscure.
People with an interest in something are now 'stakeholders'. Not so amusing perhaps, until you read it in the context of a report sent by your child's school advising you that, as parents, you are the stakeholders in your child’s future. And that you must 'empower your child' with the skills to 'leverage all opportunities going forward'. And as a parent there is 'an onus on you to measure and monitor their outputs on a regular basis'. What happened to good old homework?
How often lately have you said in casual conversation "The bottom line is.."
Back in the business world, when did you last hear that a company was putting workers off? No-one does that anymore - they 'downsize' instead. And there doesn’t seem to be a bottom line anymore, which in itself was a formulated phrase - but rather a 'triple bottom line'. A business no longer places a high importance on its customers. It is, instead, 'customer-centric'. Nobody does something anymore - they 'implement' it instead. No longer do we contribute to a project - instead 'project enhancement' is going to occur. Initiatives are more often than not 'underpinned' by something. Presumably this is not painful. When 'drivers' are mentioned no vehicles are involved.
Some expressions appear everywhere like they are sliding off a well-oiled assembly line. How often are we confronted with the expressions in every day life of 'key deliverables', 'key performance indicators', 'long term commitments', 'strategic imperatives', 'going forward', 'value added' and 'enhancing our product offering'?
What do expressions such as 'framework based upon pragmatic real-world systems', 'paradigm shift strategic imperatives', and 'outcome related focus' actually mean? They are definitely confounding, but are they a smoke screen for something more sinister?
The essence of our language is slowly being diluted. We no longer 'call a spade a spade'. Instead we have terms that are euphemistic, cliched and often misunderstood, and worse - expressions that can be perceived as manipulative, or as putting a 'spin' on what is actually being said.
According to Don Watson, author of Death Sentence, a diatribe on the abuse of the English language, and Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant & Management Jargon, “everyday we are confronted with a debased, depleted sludge: in the media, among corporations and companies of all sizes, the public service, cultural institutions, out of the mouths of our leaders, at work, and even in the locker room. New styles of business management have forced on us this new public language that makes no sense to outsiders, and it confounds even those who use it.”
Watson sees public language as 'decaying’. Our beautiful language is becoming the 'language of the business assembly line' - impersonal, unemotive and lacking individual nuances. He describes the language as mechanical and alienating and claims that over the past twenty years this 'management speak' has been promulgated by business to become the model language for everything.
Putting these accusations to the test
Take a look at the language used in your company’s mission statement. Look at how you have described your business and what it does on your website. Re-read any of your management reports, internal memos, strategic reports, advertisements and flyers that have been written in the past twelve months; peruse your most recent annual report.
Are these documents sprinkled with 'business or managerial speak'? The more appropriate question is probably how many times did these words and expressions appear?
Why has this language emerged and cast a web over language everywhere? This is a hard question to answer. Has language become impersonal and mechanical simply because we have become lazy or time poor?
Business language forms a critical part of a corporate DNA. Most companies aim to have consistent messages in all their business communication and collateral. So consistent 'business speak' words and terms are created inside a company and then get regurgitated to suit the individual business’ external needs.
Perhaps this is where the mass media takes over and uses its power to promulgate this language. Or perhaps, as George Orwell so cleverly said in 1984, “Can’t you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” When businesses talk about 'strategic imperatives moving forward' are they merely trying to pull together into one easily identifiable expression, a group of ideas, that if explained succinctly may require a paragraph rather than four words?
A cynic may suggest that modern business practice uses imperative sounding waffle to impress the public. If the public doesn’t understand the terminology then the information that is being circulated must be complex and important, in the same way that clever idioms and acronyms permeate meeting rooms and board rooms. Once again, a cynic may suggest that having only a select few understand what it is that you are working on, or talking about, is a clever way of an executive protecting his project or job.
It could be suggested that businesses want people to make difficult decisions quickly, therefore the predilection for being vague or convoluted avoids the necessity for retracting the information later. Furthermore it could also be suggested that the language desensitises feelings and emotion. Take for example the lack of sensation and sympathy evoked when a business announces that it is 'downsizing' its staff, rather than people are losing their jobs.
The fact is, that this is today’s accepted language of business and if you don’t use it then you are not talking the same language as your competitors, or from the rest of the world as it seems. This is a universal phenomena. It is a little different to trendy terms that were prevalent in the seventies, often imported from the USA, and were coined to describe management styles, practices and processes. Some of these, like 'Management by Objectives', still linger today. Many of them disappeared quickly, only to be replaced by a new fad and new terminology.
Historically speaking
Interestingly the pronunciation, grammar and spelling of words in what is classified as the 'late modern language' remains largely the same, but today we have so many more words. Historically this is the result of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the technological society, both necessitating new words for things and ideas that hadn't previously existed. The British Empire also had its role to play. At its height Britain ruled one quarter of the Earth's surface and English adopted many foreign words and made them its own. As a maritime empire it also introduced many nautical terms which still exist today. The 20th century saw two world wars and the military influence on the language during the latter half of this century has been great.
The here and now
More recently electronic and computer technology have seeped their way into common language and usage.
Today common usage, basically words that are used, recognised and accepted by the masses, plays a very important role in the development of our language.
The Macquarie Dictionary, now in its third revision, is a national dictionary of Australian English. First published in Sydney in 1998, it has been widely adopted by institutions and the general community as the national dictionary. Securely entrenched in popular usage and a basic reference point even in the language policies of the Australian Federal Government, this dictionary requires constant updating and revision. Such is the speed with which our language is evolving and our vocabulary growing.
There are also a number of dictionaries available specifically dedicated to business vocabulary. One of these, the Dictionary of Business 3rd edition, published in the UK, covers all aspects of everyday business usage, both British and American English, and contains 12,500 basic business terms. The terms cover all aspects of business life and throughout the text short quotations are given from current newspapers and magazines, to show that the terms used in the dictionary do exist in 'real life'. The quotes come from British, American, Canadian, Australian and Hong Kong sources.
The message is clear - or is it?
Surely the intention of business communication, whether it is written or spoken should be both powerful and persuasive, influencing decisions or ensuring actions take place.
Undisputedly, to do any of these effectively the language used must be clear, concise, unambiguous, and logical. Then isn't this wave of 'business speak' missing the point?
By cloaking the clear meaning of a business message then surely we are diluting a powerful message. Watson describes the language as mechanical and alienating. What business in its right mind wants to alienate or confuse its audience?
Using plain English doesn't mean being patronising or over-simplifying the message. It's not about banning new words, or killing off long words. Using plain English means delivering a message, that is written with the reader in mind - it is clear and concise and conveys the right tone. It is friendlier, easier to write, read and understand.
At the end of the day (the phrase voted recently as the most 'irritating' in the English language by supporters around the world of the Plain English pressure group) there seems to be nothing gained from the business sector continuing to promulgate clichéd, jargon-laden words and expressions; and a great deal to lose.