Corpospeak

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” – Albert Einstein

Why is it that any time we are in a meeting trying to solve problems, we attempt to use the longest words possible to produce the most convoluted explanation conceivable?

Sometimes, I think making a phone call can save 5 emails. Sometimes 5 emails can save an hour-long meeting. Using a group project board like Trello can save 6 meetings. Don’t get me wrong, I love talking to people. But we waste a ton of time and energy in our business culture simply trying to look competent and busy. This is a huge pet-peeve of mine.

There are the staples we all go to: silos, task force, steering committee, group-think, synergy, low-hanging fruit, drill down, process flow, flow process, critical path, _________ committee, standard operating procedure, buy-in, swim-lane, move the needle, offline (as in to take), moving parts, customer centric, risk averse, paradigm shift, core-competency, rightsizing, process/policy/procedure (this one is used anytime we have a miss and while relatively simple – is beaten to death), and so on.

There are compound or created phrases (yes these are all ones I have heard in person): vicarious liability, secondary affect, finished but not done, formal informals, informal formals, cross-contaminated cores, interdigitated intermediaries (I am pleased to take credit for this one, and I enjoyed weaponizing it to reply to a similar statement), process-centric, holistic adoption, orthogonal metrics, onboard accurate quality vectors, granular channels, granular to aggregated results, monotonectally benchmark, and so on a thousand times.

In some cases, these conflagurations were used to mask unfinished work, misunderstanding the work, or having no idea what was going on. In others it was to convey an air of knowledge that was nonexistent. Nobody wants to look stupid or behind. I get it. Wouldn’t it be great if we could admit it though?

I am a big proponent of saying things like: “I don’t know,” “I haven’t gotten to that yet,” “I need help,” “I don’t know what that means,” etc. And even if one does know what they are doing, why not say it in universally understandable terms? Instead of silos or vectors, say, “for some reason these two groups are not playing well together?” Instead of “granular to aggregated results” why not say “total results?” It says the same thing. The difference is that half the room won’t be staring at you, lost, while nodding in fake approval.

Sitting in a meeting I heard a question about why one cluster of business locations was not feeding customers to another. The term “inexplicable invisible silos in action” was tossed out (followed by a group harrumph and consensus nod). I was compelled to ask, “these smaller businesses are in different communities, right? Maybe they don’t feel comfortable referring to the business partner because they don’t know them and don’t identify with them? How many of the front-line employees at these places could give you directions to the partner without using Maps? Maybe the time is right to invite them over for a barbecue and let them meet each other? Create some contacts?……..Um……..create common bonds?”

As you might have guessed I was met with blank stares. There was no way this could be that simple. From some people I saw interest. But from most I saw faces that read “look new guy, we’re all glad you are trying to participate. But we know what we’re doing so you just sit this one out.”

It has been several years and the issue remains unfixed. Don’t worry, I am not done with this topic. Not by a long shot. There is a lot more fluff to dig out.