Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Wanky work speak

Pickman's model said:
Surprised we've not had leadership yet. Because what they mean isn't actually leadership, the sort of person you'd follow through hell, but senior management who couldn't lead you to a piss up in a brewery.

Also the trend for renaming senior hr managers as people officers
Click to expand...
I seem to remember they were called 'employee engagement' something or others in my last place of work.

I've tried, with some success, to blank all that sort of thing from my memory.
 
Steel Icarus said:
You need to have a robust conversation
Please can you cascade this info
Click to expand...
Where I work they changed an important system that worked and people were happy using to one that didn't work and no one liked. And rather than give people proper training they 'cascaded' it through managers to staff. Three months later the senior managers declared victory and had a drinks reception for themselves to celebrate. A year after introduction a colleague told me her team still didn't use the new system because no one understood it. Several years on it does work but not so well as it was designed for a differently structured organisation, something that wasn't considered during procurement
 
People use language because they are trying to direct their joint attention and joint intention towards a collaborative goal. Indeed, the very process of using language is a collaborative act, requiring both participants to take roles that move back and forth between them, with clarifications sought and offered in order to jointly arrive at a common understanding. Language is also inherently metaphorical, requiring us to draw upon common experiences, beliefs and ideas to describe and then understand novel concepts.

As such, when new phrases have become commonplace, rather than have a reactionary impulse of hating new things, it is probably better to be impressed at how marvellous human beings are at naturally adopting and adapting this powerful cultural tool. And the fact that new phrases have spread and taken root implies that there is something pretty powerful underlying the imagery they evoke, and the way they manage to tap into shared experiences in order to provide the correct emotional as well as informative impact on the listener.

For example, “deep dive” is a simple two-word phrase that does a lot more than simply tell you the speaker is going to look at some details. It evokes imagery of a specialist delving into murky waters, going further (and, specifically, “deeper”) than others usually do, with the aim of uncovering literally “hidden” items and bringing them up to the light. None of this needs to be made explicit — it is implicit in the phrase itself.

I suspect that the negative reaction to the use of such metaphor is less to do with the evolving and imaginative use of language, though. I suspect it is actually a perfectly understandable intuitive dislike of corporations themselves and their power relations. Anything associated with corporate activity thus becomes suspicious and hated. I can certainly get behind that kind of hate.
 
kabbes said:
People use language because they are trying to direct their joint attention and joint intention towards a collaborative goal. Indeed, the very process of using language is a collaborative act, requiring both participants to take roles that move back and forth between them, with clarifications sought and offered in order to jointly arrive at a common understanding. Language is also inherently metaphorical, requiring us to draw upon common experiences, beliefs and ideas to describe and then understand novel concepts.

As such, when new phrases have become commonplace, rather than have a reactionary impulse of hating new things, it is probably better to be impressed at how marvellous human beings are at naturally adopting and adapting this powerful cultural tool. And the fact that new phrases have spread and taken root implies that there is something pretty powerful underlying the imagery they evoke, and the way they manage to tap into shared experiences in order to provide the correct emotional as well as informative impact on the listener.

For example, “deep dive” is a simple two-word phrase that does a lot more than simply tell you the speaker is going to look at some details. It evokes imagery of a specialist delving into murky waters, going further (and, specifically, “deeper”) than others usually do, with the aim of uncovering literally “hidden” items and bringing them up to the light. None of this needs to be made explicit — it is implicit in the phrase itself.

I suspect that the negative reaction to the use of such metaphor is less to do with the evolving and imaginative use of language, though. I suspect it is actually a perfectly understandable intuitive dislike of corporations themselves and their power relations. Anything associated with corporate activity thus becomes suspicious and hated. I can certainly get behind that kind of hate.
Click to expand...
I think it is indeed the power relations that underlie people's resentment to lots of language.
 
One of the worst I’ve come across is “Spitballing” - the same as “brainstorming”. I was corrected by a “course facilitator” for using the latter as it’s somehow offensive - although I’m not sure to whom, how or why.

“Pump Priming” - something to do with preparing to disseminate you idea to others. A bar tending/cellar working term used by people who likely have never worked in a pub.

“Owning my truth” - wtf?
 
Pickman's model said:
Where I work they changed an important system that worked and people were happy using to one that didn't work and no one liked. And rather than give people proper training they 'cascaded' it through managers to staff. Three months later the senior managers declared victory and had a drinks reception for themselves to celebrate. A year after introduction a colleague told me her team still didn't use the new system because no one understood it. Several years on it does work but not so well as it was designed for a differently structured organisation, something that wasn't considered during procurement
Click to expand...
Isn't it mandatory for universities to change important systems that work and replace them with inferior systems that they bought on the cheap (probably from a mate if the VC) that isn't designed for a university?

Its traditional to do this every September a week or 2 before the start of term IME
 
kabbes said:
People use language because they are trying to direct their joint attention and joint intention towards a collaborative goal. Indeed, the very process of using language is a collaborative act, requiring both participants to take roles that move back and forth between them, with clarifications sought and offered in order to jointly arrive at a common understanding. Language is also inherently metaphorical, requiring us to draw upon common experiences, beliefs and ideas to describe and then understand novel concepts.

As such, when new phrases have become commonplace, rather than have a reactionary impulse of hating new things, it is probably better to be impressed at how marvellous human beings are at naturally adopting and adapting this powerful cultural tool. And the fact that new phrases have spread and taken root implies that there is something pretty powerful underlying the imagery they evoke, and the way they manage to tap into shared experiences in order to provide the correct emotional as well as informative impact on the listener.

For example, “deep dive” is a simple two-word phrase that does a lot more than simply tell you the speaker is going to look at some details. It evokes imagery of a specialist delving into murky waters, going further (and, specifically, “deeper”) than others usually do, with the aim of uncovering literally “hidden” items and bringing them up to the light. None of this needs to be made explicit — it is implicit in the phrase itself.

I suspect that the negative reaction to the use of such metaphor is less to do with the evolving and imaginative use of language, though. I suspect it is actually a perfectly understandable intuitive dislike of corporations themselves and their power relations. Anything associated with corporate activity thus becomes suspicious and hated. I can certainly get behind that kind of hate.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the creative new use of words especially when they emphasises the meaning like deep dive - that is a descriptive metaphor.

When 'new' language/ jargon isn't understood by everyone in the meeting or the general public it's just an obstacle.

I was asking in the context of the voluntary sector, which seems to love adopting the use of goobledegook rather than plain language. The principal of building power dynamics applies there too.
 
Miss-Shelf said:
Isn't it mandatory for universities to change important systems that work and replace them with inferior systems that they bought on the cheap (probably from a mate if the VC) that isn't designed for a university?

Its traditional to do this every September a week or 2 before the start of term IME
Click to expand...
Thank you for your email. Tranche one of the implementation phase is now complete. Please allow 5 working days for a reply from the interim transition team as the tranche two transition team is onboarding.
friendofdorothy said:
I like personnel at least it sounds personal. Wonder if it could come back into fashion.
Click to expand...
"Head of People"
 
I'm fascinated by this sort of stuff, as you see different patterns of it in different places. One place had everyone using the word 'absolutely' all the time, in the oddest places. 'I'm absolutely going for lunch' for example. Everyone also said 'link in with' rather than 'talk to', so you got 'can you link in with Rebecca about that?'.

Next place had 'keep me honest here' used liberally. So if you were explaining something in a meeting, you'd start the explanation by asking for a person or persons to 'keep you honest here', meaning that you wanted them to say if you were saying something incorrect. Current place has 'if I'm brutally honest' as a very common preface to saying anything that might even slightly disagree with someone else.

The big one for me though is 'strategic'. I ended up studying the field of strategy at uni last time round, and came to realise that it's a hugely varied field where the word strategy can mean many, many different things, some of them directly contradictory / opposite. So anyone who says 'strategic' clearly doesn't know what the word means, as if they did, they'd know that they didn't, and therefore wouldn't use it. It really is the number one bullshit klaxon of our modern age, from 'social media strategist' as a job title, to 'strategic alignment' as a plea for everyone just to sort their shit out.
 
Gerry1time said:
I'm fascinated by this sort of stuff, as you see different patterns of it in different places. .......

The big one for me though is 'strategic'.
Click to expand...
My firm's big idea at the moment is "Rethinking the Region".

Thing is, our marketing people behind this aren't "rethinking" anything. They are just sending online surveys to people we want to do business with.

This is our "strategy".

edited to correct typo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Access to Work scheme
Replies
0
Views
62
Karl Masks
K
X
ESA, UC, working freelance, NI contributions, permitted working?
Replies
5
Views
262
nottsgirl
N
Cloo
I've got a difficult project/tough period at work support thread
Replies
29
Views
1K
hash tag
hash tag
P
Men - have you ever been sexually harrassed at work?
2 3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
7K
Hollis
Hollis
trashpony
  • Poll Poll
Do you work whisper?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
Back
Top Bottom