Post by Huw - Biz Dev Director on Aug 3, 2013 13:38:01 GMT 9
Most of our clients push the envelope when they’re thinking outside the box about enhancing strategic objectives going forward through continuous improvement. To leverage the multi-parameter approach to stakeholder engagement and ensure all levels are singing from the same song sheet, they give priority to within-year resource allocation outcomes.
Seriously, why does it matter, if business language is reduced to this mire of clichés, waffle and jargon? English is an accommodating language in perpetual flux, and critics of business-speak don’t always understand the complexities and nuances of business and politics.
Well, it doesn’t matter in the sense that it’s likely to put bureaucrats out of work or bring companies down, and some managers – including those responsible for communications – seem to accept, even endorse, this type of writing.
But what matters is that it makes it virtually impossible to understand what the writer means.
Closely interrogate corporate speak and you’ll often find that this language disguises the fact that:
a) there hasn’t been much thought into what’s really wanted
b) there are two (or more) schools of thought on the subject, so umbrella terms are needed to cover every alternative
c) no-one is really clear on what’s needed
d) someone wants to sound impressive by using five-syllable words
e) the writer doesn’t really want to be too specific because without much wriggle-room, he or she won’t be able pass the buck later.
These tendencies are more widespread than you might think.
So if your intention is to provide such escape routes, by all means use the latest buzz-words and jargon. But if you’re trying to explain something important to your employees, shareholders or customers, it’s best to use English in as easy-to-understand form
as possible.
There’s another reason. Using corporate-speak means something valuable is being lost: what a teacher of mine once described as the glory and majesty of English. There’s no reason why business English shouldn’t be inspirational. An orator at a speechwriters’ conference I once attended in Washington said it’s the job of a corporate speechwriter to add beauty and meaning to public discourse. A good speechwriter knows how to compress the greatest amount of meaning into the fewest number of words (think of the Gettysburg address). That’s the essence of good and inspiring business writing too. “Perfection,” as the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once reminded us, “is not when there is no more to add, but no more to take away”.
That brings me to the final point: corporate speak is inefficient. These days we want messages that are clear and readily understood because it saves time. That’s why we advise our writers to edit and re-edit copy before dispatching it, making an effort to cut back wherever possible. Waffle is tedious. Writers should respect their audiences enough to ensure they don’t bore them. It’s a matter of courtesy. They owe it to busy people to supply only information that’s directly relevant. And to keep it as brief and interesting
as possible.
Seriously, why does it matter, if business language is reduced to this mire of clichés, waffle and jargon? English is an accommodating language in perpetual flux, and critics of business-speak don’t always understand the complexities and nuances of business and politics.
Well, it doesn’t matter in the sense that it’s likely to put bureaucrats out of work or bring companies down, and some managers – including those responsible for communications – seem to accept, even endorse, this type of writing.
But what matters is that it makes it virtually impossible to understand what the writer means.
Closely interrogate corporate speak and you’ll often find that this language disguises the fact that:
a) there hasn’t been much thought into what’s really wanted
b) there are two (or more) schools of thought on the subject, so umbrella terms are needed to cover every alternative
c) no-one is really clear on what’s needed
d) someone wants to sound impressive by using five-syllable words
e) the writer doesn’t really want to be too specific because without much wriggle-room, he or she won’t be able pass the buck later.
These tendencies are more widespread than you might think.
So if your intention is to provide such escape routes, by all means use the latest buzz-words and jargon. But if you’re trying to explain something important to your employees, shareholders or customers, it’s best to use English in as easy-to-understand form
as possible.
There’s another reason. Using corporate-speak means something valuable is being lost: what a teacher of mine once described as the glory and majesty of English. There’s no reason why business English shouldn’t be inspirational. An orator at a speechwriters’ conference I once attended in Washington said it’s the job of a corporate speechwriter to add beauty and meaning to public discourse. A good speechwriter knows how to compress the greatest amount of meaning into the fewest number of words (think of the Gettysburg address). That’s the essence of good and inspiring business writing too. “Perfection,” as the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once reminded us, “is not when there is no more to add, but no more to take away”.
That brings me to the final point: corporate speak is inefficient. These days we want messages that are clear and readily understood because it saves time. That’s why we advise our writers to edit and re-edit copy before dispatching it, making an effort to cut back wherever possible. Waffle is tedious. Writers should respect their audiences enough to ensure they don’t bore them. It’s a matter of courtesy. They owe it to busy people to supply only information that’s directly relevant. And to keep it as brief and interesting
as possible.