So, unless one is an anal-retentive, prescriptivist who intends to proscribe any word not already in use for 700 years, a descriptive definition indicates that the word is now acceptable in English usage. (I suspect that submittal gained popular currency under the influence of transmittal and is now here to stay.)
Mind you, I also oppose some of the pretentious nonsense that passes for “communication” in the business world, today*, but attempting to dismiss the presence of a word because it is found in a dictionary simply because one prefers a prescriptivist approach to language, seems rather solipsistic.
*(E.g., Information Technology, which, to me, indicates the manufacturing process that allows graphite to be embedded in a wooden sheath, allowing the graphite to be held rigidly in such a way as to make communicative marks on a piece of paper while Information Systems describes a method of creating actual systems to convey information in an orderly and useful manner.
I also agree that Human Resources and Employee Relations are rather stupid replacements for the quite recognizable Personnel.)
Several of the words condemned, here, actually had legitimate origins.
Leverage was the practice of having the corporate officers steal money from the pension fund and use that as a lever to buy out the whole company (returning a pittance annuity to the people who had believed earlier statements that they were actually going to receive a pension for investing 30 or 40 years of their lives laboring for a single company). The use of lever connjured up the image of Archimedes proclaiming that with a lever and a place on which to stand he could move the world, just as the theft of a few million dollars from a pension fund could be used to move a seveeral billion dollar company into the pockets of the officers who were supposed to oversee the growth and development of that company. Later abuses of the word leverage do not negate the meaning that the word originally conveyed.
Paradigm shift actually conveyed a genuine meaning when it was first coined, although it was too catchy a phrase to avoid being degraded to mean any negligible change in the wording of company policy (that was not actually supported by the effects of company policy).
Just seeing that phrase has me grinding my teeth down to nubs. I think anyone who uses that phrase has immediately forfeited his right not to be stabbed in the kidneys.
Another favorite is our execs telling us the importance of “work/life balance” while ordering us to work 7 days a week.
Compared to that bullshit, my old least favorite: “leverage,” seems like nothing. We’ve got one exec who uses it whenever possible; she’s said it so often over the past two and a half years that I suspect she uses it in casual conversation and to talk to her children. “Okay, honey, I’ll tuck you in, but we need to leverage your tooth-brushing time to get buy-in on the bedtime story. Can we get buy-in on that? Sleep smarter, not harder!”
This one is used quite frequently in environmental technical writing. Because of one of the official meanings of the word 'impact" is:
The striking of one body against another; collision. See Synonyms at collision.
The force or impetus transmitted by a collision. The effect or impression of one thing on another: still gauging the impact of automation on the lives of factory workers.
The power of making a strong, immediate impression: a speech that lacked impact.
Such as “the impact of the oil spill on soil and vegetation in the Prince William Sound”. Or the contamination of solvents from runway spills has impacted the soil and drinking water".
Saying ‘has impressed contamination upon the soil’ would just be uwieldy and awkward. And if you’re talking about the same area of contamination you can only say “this area has possible contamination” so many times before the doc starts to become REALLY repetitive.
I can see where in an office setting it would be annoying to say that the A/C repair has impacted worker production, or something, but there are areas in which it’s used properly, like technical writing.
So, if it’s not some “man in a truck” but instead I deliver the reports, drawings and CDs to the client in my own car, or if I arrange to have them delivered by FedEX or UPS, I can’t call those items “deliverables”? Even if that’s how the client defines them in the contract? It’s done that way, at least in my business, because the client is usually going to be getting a number of different type items from us, from reports, to pictures of site investigations, to drawings, to simple tech memos.
They’re all different, and it’s simpler to refer to them all as “deliverables” when discussing due dates and so on, rather than saying “oh report XYZ, Site 29, the corrected drawings from Site 94, and the lab reports Blah, blahblah, beeblah and so on and so on are ready” to simply say “all deliverables are complete and ready to go”.
I agree with most of the more useless “Dialogueing” type corporate speak, but there are a few terms that have actual uses. And defining them as such really does simplify things. Honest.
“Issues.” Nothing is a “problem”, so we call it an issue. This somehow makes it sound more positive :rolleyes:.
“Give it 110%.” That’s not even mathematically possible. Our full effort would determine the benchmark for 100%. To exceed this would re-determine the benchmark.
“Networking”, as in “They’re networking on the latest project.” Networks are for computers, not people.
My guess would be “prepare an idea for production”. I imagine if you work for M&M/Mars and management had this great idea for the next great M&M, “Batshit M&M’s”, and the board had all voted and decided it was time to actually implement this idea, and it then fell upon you to somehow get the batshit to market, then your job is to “productionalize” the “Batshit M&M’s”.
Not that I’m supporting the usage of this travesty. It’s just that I thought of a funny example.
Yes – those are all the noun forms of the word “impact”. But since it’s not a verb, it doesn’t have a valid past participle.
Yes! That’s a noun.
Not unless the soil and drinking water are now lodged in your gums.
We already have a perfectly cromulent word for when one thing has an impact on another: “Affected”. As in, “the contamination of solvents from runway spills has affected the soil and drinking water”.
That said, I know I’m fighting a losing battle and that it has become acceptable, like so many other errors. It still drives me absolutely nuts.
I’m willing to defend a lot of the terms here. They are useful in business. I am a practical person; if it’s a little phony but still gets the message accross in a useful way, I’m for it. On the other hand, I do not like terms that obfuscate or decorate things (hence my disdain for the term “Human Resources”; it’s inaccurate and goofy). Let me defend some of the terms others have despised:
Proactive. A good short word that emphasizes a stance of anticipating problems and thinking ahead.
Challenges. Not all challenges are problems. One important thing to remember in business is that opportunity-pursuit is even more important than problem-solving.
Impactful. Good as marketing jargon, since it’s a short way of saying that the message is being gotten and is sticking.
Networking. This is definitely a necessary activity in business, and the Japanese word nemawashi also covers this.
Leverage. This has many concrete meanings both in finance and business in general. The idea is that you can use an asset to gain a disproportionate and positive effect.
I hate the word “paradigm,” I must admit. “Paradigm” originally referred exclusively to the conjugation of verbs. When certain things shifted therein, you had a “paradigm shift.” Now people think that “paradigm” means “worldview” or something mysterious. Well, Pandora’s box and all that, but I still think the phrase is vulgar and extremely overused.
I didn’t, but in the construction industry (which is rife with things for lawsuits, but that’s beside the point), I’ve heard it used by our ex-resident MBA idiot to mean, “to do” or “incomplete.” I probably should have mentioned that in my post.
“Is that an actionable item?”
“Huh?”
“Can action be taken on that item?”
“Uh, it’s not done yet, if that’s what you mean?”
“I’m going to send you an email on that. Not only that, I’m going to task you.”
“Huh?”
“It means you have to do it now.”
“But we have to do it anyway.”
“No, you have to do it now.”
“Uh, there’s a three-week lead time on that.”
Not an actual conversation, but close.
I’m still excited when I shat out a list of buzzwords that made that guy’s head spin. He went to the CEO and told him I was the most brilliant man in the company. The CEO realized that I was fucking with the MBA-candidate, but nonetheless, I moved up from cubicle troll to being promoted a number of times. All thanks to people who think buzzwordz are kewl.
This is a very timely thread. I will be entering the job market in the next couple of weeks and can use this as my bullshit cheat sheet when interviewing with pompous airheads.
Looking through the classifieds today, I can see that my year of full time homemaking, and previous five years in a very casual business atmosphere, has left me very far out of the jargon loop :rolleyes:
I hate the term “deliverables”. What’s wrong with just saying “I expect all tasks to be done?” or the even more simple “I expect everything to be done”?
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned “pushing the envelope”. Maybe not so much corporate speak, but I hear it EVERYWHERE and it makes me crazy.
“Dude, I like to think that you hired me because I’m smart. If I work smarter, you have to give me a raise, and we both know that isn’t going to happen, so STFU.”
