When did this business (heh) of corporations using nonsensical jargon like “paradigm-shifting” and “transactional frameworks” become a thing? Surely Milton Hershey never prattled on to his investors and/or partners about leveraging core equities, did he? I have to assume Augustus Busch never once put his signature on anything containing the words “vertical integration,” or did he?
And why is this still a thing? Do Business professors teach their students that this type of thing attracts investors or excites clients? Does it attract investors or excite clients?
Seriously, who really believes this nonsense accomplishes something?
“Vertical integration” is a real thing, that it’s useful to have an actual term for. “Paradigm-shifting” and “transactional frameworks”, though, are just pure buzzword.
Jargon has two different purposes, to clarify and to obfuscate. As for how long obfuscatory jargon has been a thing… Well, “shibboleth” comes from the Bible.
I’d be willing to bet as long as corporations have been a thing. I still remember TQM (total quality management) being a thing in the 80’s. What the hell was it?
There is no widespread agreement as to what TQM is and what actions it requires of organizations
Yeah, it occurred to me that this is a real thing, and an aspirational one at that. Just yesterday I learned that, in the days of the Studio System, the studios also owned the theaters in which their films were screened. The YouTube host called this an example of “vertical integration,” which makes perfect sense.
Canadian Pacific Railway was a classic example of vertical integration.
CPR built the railway to bring settlers to western Canada;
CPR operated immigration services in Britain and Europe to bring settlers to Canada;
CPR operated steamships in the Atlantic to bring immigrants to Canada, and in the Pacific to a lesser extent;
CPR sold land to settlers in western Canada so they could start farming;
CPR brought farm equipment from eastern manufacturers to the farmers in western Canada;
CPR shipped the grain grown by farmers to ports to sell overseas;
CPR operated hotels along its railway lines, to ensure travellers had reliable good quality accommodation;
Because CPR had such a detailed vertical integration, it got lucrative contracts to carry the Royal mail from Britain to Canada, and across Canada, and then across the pacific to other parts of the British Empire in the Pacific, like Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand.
I’m going to suggest that since management attracts pompous unskilled asses, using flowery language to express trivialities dates to the beginnings of management. So about 200,000 years ago.
An example can be found in a 1946 article discussing the use of “buzzwords” at Harvard Business School (where that term originated):
“If his analysis does not highlight the most important problems he has ‘poor focus’, and if he fails to emphasize important recommendations he will be accused of ‘tinkering’. If the sequence for the ‘implementation’ of the recommendations is not good it is a matter of ‘poor timing’. To succeed, the student must ‘get on top of the problem’. He must ‘hit the problem’ and not ‘shadow box’ it. If he cannot do these things he might just as well ‘turn in his suit’”.
Corporations are greedy, sociopathic entities full of employees terrified of being laid off or mistreated. Dysfunctional cultures give birth to dysfunctional behaviors. Thats the way I view it.
Wait, did you just watch “Film Historian Answers Old Hollywood Questions” yesterday? Because, so did I. YT must be pushing it (and I did enjoy it a lot).
Also, some of the business buzzwords I see mocked are actually useful, some are silly. I think we’ve had this conversation a bunch of times here.
Andrew Carnegie controlled the steel industry through vertical integration. He owned everything he needed to make steel.
In contrast, John D. Rockefeller controlled oil through horizontal integration. He didn’t own all the stuff like Carnegie, but he pretty much owned all the oil.
It is still very much a thing, although not referred to as such anymore. Many companies adhere to it through quality Standards such as ISO 9000 - which most in the electronics and aerospace industries follow, along with other quality standards such AS9100, which is aerospace-specific.
The American Society for Quality (ASQ) describes it as:
Total quality management (TQM) is a term first used to describe a management approach to quality improvement. Since then, TQM has taken on many meanings but at its core it describes a management approach to long-term success through customer satisfaction. TQM, as a term, is not as widely used in the United States as it once was, with most of the concepts, principles, and methodologies subsumed under the term quality management. More modern applications of its principles and processes can be found in concepts like quality management systems, quality standards such as the ISO 9000 series, and quality award programs such as the Deming Prize and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
My company is certified to ISO 9001, along with AS9100. We must foster an environment of continual improvement, tracking things such as on-time-delivery, customer complaints, training, calibration of equipment, and document control. We are audited annually to ensure adherence to these Standards (and a few others) and my job is to keep us compliant to these Standards. So yes, it is very much still relevant. Many of our customers would not work with us if we didn’t have those certifications. Plus, we find it to be very beneficial.
I thought this might be more about the maddening rhetoric used by companies.
Saying, “Your call is important to us”, when actually they’re doing everything possible to avoid such interactions. Or whenever a company does something harmful through either neglect or outright malfeasance they put out a press release that typically starts with, “We value our customers and safety above all else…” Which is utter BS, because of course all they really care about is making profits.
These are just noises they see themselves as required to make in order to make problems go away or to continue pretending they are responsive to customers. I’m a strong free speech supporter, but I think an argument can be made that we should be allowed to extract damages from any company with the goddam gall to use this sort of language as a matter of course.
In the context of maddening rhetoric used within corporations, it seems to be the province of people desperately trying to get promoted.
So you end up with Bob the VP who’s trying to position himself to be the next President/CEO using whatever the latest jargon he heard at the most recent industry conference he attended (and that jargon likely came from industry consultants) in the meetings after the conference.
Then you end up with Sally, Pete, and Dave the senior managers bucking for Bob’s slot using all the same jargon in a lame attempt to signal that they were listening and understood Bob’s bullshit.
And then you end up with Nick, John, and Jen the junior managers using the same jargon because they want Sally, Pete, and Dave’s jobs.
Nobody really internalizes it, it’s more of a situation where those speaking the same nonsense as the boss gets left behind, and the boss looks like he’s on top of shit because he’s saying new stuff he heard at some conference from some dipshit consultants who make this shit up so they can bill someone more time for it.
It’s all nonsense, and it’s all driven by greed and desperation.
I wouldn’t say it is necessarily “to get promoted”, but I definitely see a small group of people coming up with a useful term to describe something, followed by a huge group of people parrotting the term of LinkedIn while only having the vaguest idea of the underlying concept to try to seem more connected than they actually are.
Corporations are social organizations. People move up by being liked and likeable, not by being capable. So everybody with any upward desires is trying to outguess their peers as to what will most impress their boss. Which process of course rewards style over substance.
There is even corporate jargon (Euphemistic machinations) to describe corporate jargon. Most corporate jargon is designed to obfuscate despicable, stupid, unethical, or even illegal policies and behavior. Multi-Level Marketing is more palatable to a consumer’s ear than Pyramid Scheme.
