My last boss used to kill me every time “thought leadership” came out of her mouth.
“Thought leadership”? I’m still not sure what that means…
Hardly. There is such a thing as elegant English, but it is not obtained in that manner.
No such word as ‘incentivize’ is recognized. It’s bullshit jargon.
I will defend the use of “incentivized” because I recently used it in a paper for non-pretentious reasons. The paper describes a training course I developed and the rationale used in developing it. My goal was to get clinicians to take the course, so I incentivized participation by offering CME credits.
I don’t think “encouraged” or “promoted” is as effective as a word as “incentivized”, in the context here. So complain all you want to about how buzz wordy it sounds, but my bet is that incentivized is here to stay.
That’s the theme from a certain group of people in every conversation about pretentious jargon. “It can’t be pretentious because I use it.”
One could easily turn that around and argue that those who hate the word find it pretentious because “I don’t use it, so it must suck!”
The word functions as a word is supposed to function. It communicates a shade of meaning that most other words do not, and that is why I don’t consider it pretentious.
But if it’s hardly a tragedy if you disagree.
Both these points of view is why I think few, if any, words are “pretentious”. People who get offended by the perceived pretentiousness of words are usually revealing more about their own insecurities than revealing anything about the person who used the word.
And the bottom line is we all have buzzwords or unfamiliar words (to ourselves) that seem perfectly normal and useful to someone else.
The whole point of language is to communicate, and deliberately using unfamiliar language serves to hinder communication. Of course, some people use language to intimidate and make their work seem more important or ‘special’.
‘Incentivize’ is totally unnecessary and ridiculous. It shows laziness on the part of the speaker who cannot be bothered to form proper English sentences.
It means nothing that ‘motivate’ does not mean, and thus it is a vulgarism. Read Fowler’s Modern English Usage.
Really? You don’t think language can be pretentious? Your user name is “Ivory Tower Denizen”, fer chrissakes. I’m not saying you’re pretentious, but c’mon. “Ivory Tower?!” There’s certainly been a lot of pretentious language coming from Ivory Towers over the centuries. How the hell can you name yourself that and not realize that language can be pretentious?
Substituting the word ‘motivate’ will cure the problem.
Wow, that’s a lot of anger about words.
I do not find words pretentious. I find words, common or uncommon, familiar or new. I find people can be pretentious or unpretentious, regardless of their vocabulary. In fact, I find most people can be pretty arrogant using small words just fine. I think words are fantastic and love hearing new and unusual ones all the time. I couldn’t care less if I don’t know the vocab someone is using- it’s doesn’t make me feel small or stupid. I generally ask what the word means or look it up, and then the word is mine, too.
I did not choose my username because I glory in the perceived pretentiousness of academia.
Nope. Motivate is broader. You can be motivated by all kinds of thing, including lots of vague intangibles. But you can only be incentivized by an incentive.
I’m not angry, buddy. But your post did make me think “Wha?” and wonder if I was missing a joke. I’m slightly disappointed that I wasn’t.
Uh, huh. Well, sorry for the disappointment, buddy.
Nonsense.
And you can only be motivated by a motive. The statements mean the same thing.
I hate to be a grammar Nazi, but that should be “incentivated”.
And “motivate participation” doesn’t make sense. You motivate a person, not a behavior. In contrast, you can incentivize a behavior by attaching a reward to it.
Who is deliberately using unfamiliar language? These types of speech patterns are very familiar in the setting that they are used. The usage has no ulterior motive other than to communicate.
I talk about people who work for me or who work on my projects as ‘resources’. That’s a term that has been decried in this thread as well. Resources is a generic term because they could be employees or contractors. They are used interchangeably and often come on and off projects. They are by definition a resource to the project. This is how the entire company describes people who work on projects.
It took me about 1 week on the job to know that “change leadership” was analogous to training department. It meant more than training department, but that was the main function. It is frowned on to say that an employee has ‘issues’ or that an employee is ‘bad’ in any way. That can be construed as hostile. Instead an employee has ‘challenges’. Why? So I don’t get sued.
There is a culture and speech pattern involved in business. It’s no different than any other group that has their own speech patterns.
Language is fluid. All words weren’t actual words at some point in time. What say thou?
*I have never used the phrase “walk the talk” or any combination of those words together because that’s just silly.