Not all of us work in the corporate/private sector. Quite a few of us work in government, where the “C-level” doesn’t exist. And yet a person who works in government can still have an experience very similar to the OP’s. Is that person unqualified to answer the question?
The OP’s situation wasn’t technical at all. Many people have had experience with coworkers/underlings having inappropriate relationships with higher-ups. I’m sure the same scenario is playing out at the McDonald’s right down the street from me. Big whoop. So using corporate-speak to describe such a mundane situation seems a bit strange to me.
I guess this is where we disagree. I don’t happen to believe the OP made a mistake in his choice of language. He used terms that (I believe) he had every expectation would be understood by his audience. Yet he was accused of using “ridiculous” terms and being purposefully obscure. I just don’t see it.
I think its a particular hatred for so called “buzzwords” as opposed to other jargon or career-specific phrasing. For some reason the language used by large corporations is seen as particularly worthy of derision, in a way that other jargon is not.
Had the OP in that other thread posted in IMHO “An adjunct professor in my department is bonking the chair” we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I didn’t think that OP was particularly hard. In fact, I thought they were pretty intuitive, so there’s that.
In general, if you want general responses, you should use general language. If you want specific responses, you should use specific language. If you use specific language for a general question, you’re putting up a layer of confusion between yourself and the audience you want to reach.
So, if the OP wanted only very specific responses, the post was phrased perfectly. If the OP wanted general responses, it wasn’t.
But even if it wasn’t phrased perfectly, it was perfectly fine.
Can anyone guess what this means and who wrote it? No googling!
we initiate, without any immediate consciousness of the action, the most purposive counter-movements and in the process plainly make use of our entire faculty of understanding.
I’m not sure I agree that this was “non technical” - management is a field of study. People get PhDs in it. The question being asked had legal and human resources implications as well as the potential for a CLM (career limiting move for those into jargon). This isn’t a question on “how to make a grilled cheese sandwich.” There are technical issues at play when a employee of a company has a sexual relationship with a officer of the company. People who didn’t realize that weren’t terribly qualified to comment. Granted, not technical as in how to overclock a motherboard, or what the equation is to get a Z-score, or “explain string theory.”
I don’t think they have factual answers, but answers based on people’s experiences. And yet each one has technical terms that could have been explained initially, weren’t, and yet were successful.
I’m unclear on the meaning here and don’t wish to find out for myself. Could you explain it to me in clear, concise language? Please, no more technical jargon.
the first problem is with the title itself. the 6 examples (including the 3 from IvoryTowerDenizen) are clearly-titled threads requiring specialised knowledge, if you don’t know anything about Linux you wouldn’t click on the GQ thread. the direct report thread however, is asking Aunt Agony for relationship advice in IMHO. using jargons.
it is entirely unclear from the title, and the OP itself actually, what kind of relationship advice is being sought. clicking on the thread, you’re slapped with the same jargon (among others) 6 times repeatedly in place of pronouns, leaving you with a sting on your face and an urge to send him back to school to learn how to communicate properly.
Oh please. C-Levels and “direct reports” are about as “intelligible” as “motherboards” and “Hard drives” are. Anyone who’s worked for a decent sized company knows them and the general public does too. It’s hardly arcane jargon.