Entry 888, on 2008-11-13 at 21:45:52 (Rating 3, Comments)
A recent article on the New Zealand Herald web site discussed the subject of annoying phrases. Coincidentally I was discussing the related problem of jargon and meaningless catchphrases with some colleagues today. Also yesterday a friend discussed how he played "Cliche Cricket" at a recent meeting. In this game the players have to use as many meaningless cliches during the meeting as possible to score "runs". The phrases must be used within a reasonable context so that other people at the meeting don't realise the process is being ridiculed.
But more seriously, why do we have so much jargon and cliches? I think its for two (ironically opposite) reasons: first, two make an exact meaning more precise and accurate; and second, two disguise the true meaning or hide the fact that there is no real content in the phrase.
Technical people tend to use jargon for the first reason. When I'm talking to a client I might use words like "memory" but when I'm talking to another computer geek I would use more precise terms like RAM, disk, optical storage, etc. It just avoids confusion. Note that I have enough common sense and respect for my clients to change my vocabulary based on their knowledge of computing.
Now what about the opposite situation? Politicians and managers tend to use specialised vocabulary for the opposite reason. They have no real ideas of any merit so they disguise this by using vague terms that can't be challenged because they have no precise meaning. Or, in some situations, they disguise the true meaning because they don't want to be challenged on the truth of what they are saying.
Let's look at a few cliches. How about an old favourite like "a level playing field". Everyone wants their playing field to be level, based on both the literal and metaphorical meanings. But what does it really mean? Well very rarely does it ever mean that everyone will be treated the same. If that phrase was used instead then it might be necessary to follow up with action, but a level playing field can be interpreted in so many different ways that whatever outcome there is can fit with a carefully selected interpretation.
How about this one: "we've got to raise the bar". This is usually interpreted as meaning that people need to lift their standards. But what does this usually mean in practice? In my experience it means more work for less, or the same, pay; more bureaucracy; less flexibility; and greater checks on performance by people who rarely understand the real issues. So what would you rather say: "we've got to raise the bar", or "you have to do more work for less pay, do more paper work and put up with more ignorant managers watching over your shoulder. Yes, the first option is far more pithy (but less accurate).
Here are a few favourites (or really the opposite: most hated) from the web site: blue sky thinking; there are no problems, only solutions; to be perfectly honest with you; moving forward; thinking outside the box.
These are mostly what I call "management speak" and illustrate the inane level these people work at. For example, saying there are no problems only solutions implies that we can create a solution if we just try hard enough. Well its not always that easy, except it usually is for the manager because they just have to insist that a person who actually does some work creates a solution then they can avoid accountability if it goes wrong while accepting the credit if it does work.
And there are the cliches which generally either mean the opposite of what they superficially say. Many people will use the phrase "to be perfectly honest with you" when they intend to lie to you or mislead you. Occasionally I use it when I am genuinely presenting a true but unfortunate fact. So it means two opposite things and effectively has no meaning. Mental note to self: stop using that phrase!
How about moving forward? We are really always moving forward, the real question is which direction does forward represent. Are we moving forward to an innovative and brighter future or are we heading towards the land of bureaucracy and mediocrity? Both directions seem like they are forward depending where your ultimate destination is.
Finally, these cliches are deemed so offensive that using them in a game is considered out: win-win, strategic-[anything], out of the box, blue sky thinking, sustainability, ballpark figure, reading off the same page. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to perhaps think of their own, personal favourites!
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE