Stupid terms we love to hate - Communications Management - discourse on business lexicon - Column

Communications News, Sept, 1993 by Paul Kirvan

I'm mad as hell and I bet you are, too. I'm sick of the endless stream of stupid terms and "descriptive" words and phrases we have to deal with each day. Our profession is populated with all sorts of terms that seem to suggest a level of value and importance far in excess of reality.

Enough already! It's time to get this out into the open.

First off, who creates these terms? I've always thought it was someone buried in the catacombs of a megacorporation. (If this describes your job, please contact the writer immediately!) Second, why are they so popular? Probably because they are different from the more tried and true words in use. And probably because people are afraid to challenge their use. No more!

Third, why are intelligent people like you so eager to adopt these terms and phrases? It's gotten so bad that you'll pay "consultants" big bucks to explain the term to you. And what really gets me is the vast numbers of you who line up to listen to this nonsense. (Maybe it's the consultants who are making up these terms.)

Let's move on. We'll begin with "partnering," a classic example of how an entire industry - indeed even a profession - can be created by simple modification of a common word. I've even written on this term in a previous column. (That doesn't mean I sanction the term or its use, however!) So why can't we simply "strike a business deal" or "work together" on a project?

Another great one is "outsourcing," which also spawned an entire industry based on a silly term. What ever happened to the words "subcontract" or just plain "contract out" for the process of getting someone to work for you? On top of this, you can select different flavors of outsourcing. In my column on outsourcing (yes, I did one on that subject as well) I described two approaches: total and selective. When we get to the point where different variations of the same thing are now available, we know it has gotten out of hand.

But suppose a company decides to have another division of the firm do the work. Does that mean the company is "insourcing" the job? What if the company wants part of the project done by an outside firm, and the rest by an internal department? Does that mean they are "midsourcing" or perhaps "semisourcing" the job? Perhaps if they borrowed Bruce Willis' wife for the job it would then be "demisourcing."

This one's among the best. In the 1990s companies don't get smaller. They "downsize" or "re-engineer." If they want to redirect the company to a new focus, they "rightsize." What if the firm suddenly improves its fortunes? Does that mean it "upsizes"? If a company has to fold, perhaps we would say it has experienced "desizing"; and if the wolf is at the door, we're then talking about "sudden death desizing." Is the opposite of rightsizing "leftsizing"? Can we say that a left-handed CEO means the firm has experienced the "executive leftsizing" process?

The British are very adept at the English language, as we might expect. They have a very kind way of describing the phenomenon known as getting laid off. One has been "made redundant." Here we would probably say something ridiculous like "de-engineered" or "functionally irrelevant."

If you are assigned a task, and you have the resources and the training to complete it, you probably have been "empowered." Now, what happens if we, as the empowerers, are no longer empowered with the ability to empower? Are we now "depowered" or "un-powered"? Most likely we're just plain powerless.

Here's one that really gets me. Have you noticed how many "paradigm shifts" our industry is experiencing lately? Whatever happened to "changes" or "new directions"? An example of this phenomenon is telephone companies opening the doors to their local loop monopoly. Perhaps another example of this was when touchtone service was introduced. (By the way, when are the telcos going to stop ripping us off by continuing to charge for touchtone service?) If you stop buying Chevrolets and start buying Fords, is that also a paradigm shift?

Has your life entered the "virtual" stage? Many of you probably remember when IBM introduced virtual storage and virtual memory. The basic idea was that the memory/storage was there, but it wasn't really there.

Today, the latest rage is "virtual reality." But we in the telecomm industry take no back seats to anyone in technology. We have virtual networks and virtual WATS, for example. They're there, but they're really not. Or are they? No matter. People buy the stuff anyway.

We're awash in stupid terms. It's got to stop. But how? Maybe the first thing is to purge your souls of these terms. Having done that, maybe we can start a campaign to encourage Plain Speaking in telecommunications. Let's start by asking you to tell us your Most Favorite Words and Expressions to Hate.

Call 609-228-7525 or fax 609-232-8821 to tell us your favorites. In a few months we'll have a follow-up column where you can take the stage.

Let's rightsize the English language, while downsizing the number of paradigm shifts. You have been empowered. Go out in the world, seek your terms, and report back with no virtual delays. But remember, no outsourcing on this one!