Business Language and the Language of Business

for my Friends -the "pneumatic corporate limbs of  capitalism..."

I was talking to a management consultant a few months ago who said what I’m sure many working folks have been saying for years.  As a consultant who is constantly flipping from job to job, he has to be on top of the language of business so as to communicate with his clients.  For him, language is key because it acts as the first screening mechanism that one is likely to come across.  “But” I asked, “the language is so trendy it changes from month to month.  How do you keep up?”

            “That’s the thing” he said.  The language of business is often full of bizarre metaphors that guide their thought –most of which are hopelessly devoid of any real meaning.

Take the phrase: “We want people who can think ‘outside the box’…”

This was a metaphor that was popular a few years back but has since been, from what I can see, abandoned.  Eventually people start asking “What box are you talking about?” and “why do you want me to think ‘outside it’?”  Pretty soon this metaphor became a cliché and “thinking outside the box” became so common that everyone was “thinking outside the box.”  So now what?

I was in a book store the other week surveying the business literature.  As usual there is no shortage of “expert” authors telling you how to “master the deal –Trump style” and build a “culture of innovation.”  But up on the top shelf, some books caught my eye.  The first was entitled “Outside the Box: Leading with Corporate Values to Drive Sustained Business Success” by David S. Cohen.  To the right, right beside it, was another book entitled: “Get back in the Box” by Douglas Rushkoff.  For a moment I actually started to laugh.  All this time I was trying to “think outside the box.”  Now I’m supposed to get back in?  Which is it boys? In or out? 

Is it not positively hilarious that the business world prides itself on “application” and “pragmatic” thinking?  To be sure, in business it’s about getting it done.  And yet many business professionals seem to enjoy being seduced by their own abstractions proffered by marketing professionals-turned-authors who are making successful careers for themselves by telling executives what, in many cases, they should already know; an entire book industry built on vacuous metaphors and useless abstractions.

If you grow tired and insipid language look no farther than the average job descriptions you’ll find on job boards and career websites.  Here are some of my favourite picks of the current nomenclature.  I have provided a rough translation where possible:

“A CRITICAL THINKER” – This is a skill that is probably the most paradoxical.  In truth, it seems that business stole this term from the social science and philosophy.  In social theory “critical theory” has its roots in Kantian and Hegelian dialectics and the term itself was popularized by a school of Marxist philosophers from Germany.  As for critical theory itself, the basic idea is that in order to gain a better understanding of something one must think dialectically; (or to put it in a vulgar way) one must think in terms of opposites.  You have a thesis; critical theory provides an antithesis.  Put them together and you have synthesis.  This methodology, however, begins to break down when you apply it to business because how hard would it be to manage an entire staff of critical thinkers?  And now the translation: 

"CRITICAL THINKER" – A person to thinks “critically” but keeps it to themselves so as not to offer any kind of real opposition to current modes of business thought.  Just so there is no “mis-communication”: they want a critical thinker –who is critical of nothing.

“INNOVATIVE” – Innovative usually means an idea (or in this case a person) who is inventive and thinks in unusual ways to solve problems.  This is not a bad skill to have until you consider that no one wants to hire someone who is going to make them look like a dumb-ass who should have thought about that same idea a long time ago.  Being innovative is more like being a “critical thinker.”  If you are innovative, keep it to yourself.

“3-5 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE REQUIRED”- This is confusing because the rhetoric from those up-on-high is that we are now living in an “information economy” or a “knowledge economy” and reliance on previous experience is often considered an impediment to new and “innovative” ideas and ways of thinking that will make firms competitive on the “global market.”  Many people use the term “experience” when they really mean “seniority”.  I think we are living in a “knowledge economy” and I’m sure that there are many who could easily do their bosses job –probably even better than their boss.  But, you’re not qualified because you don’t have the “experience.”  Remember though, incompetence isn’t learned overnight.  It takes at least 3-5 years.

“A SELF-STARTER WHO TAKES INITIATIVE” – This is just another fancy term for “motivated” with “common sense.”  But who isn’t a “self-starter”?  Who is an “other-starter?” And what are we “starting” again?  And what’s the initiative?  The truth is that a “self-starter” is someone who is sufficiently motivated to ask their manager what to do next. 

“DEADLINE DRIVEN” – This seems to be common sense to me.  Again, if one is not “deadline driven” one would have to wonder why they are seeking a “job” in the first place.  Because I thought that’s what a “job” is.  You know, “working” to meet “deadlines” set by your manager.  You know, “work” as opposed to “play” which is not really deadline-driven.

“A FOCUSED PROBLEM SOLVER” – Yes, this is perhaps the most important skill to have.  There’s nothing worse than hiring an unfocused problem-maker.  All those positions are taken.

-BK

February 18, 2007.

New Logic

By RACHEL MARSDEN

NEW YORK -- Since I slipped and fell four times this week in Times Square on my way to work, it's time to weigh in on the glo-bull warming debate. Because when I'm inconvenienced by the weather, there's something wrong with the planet.

It's no wonder the political left is all over the global warming phenomenon, as it falls into line with the rest of their causes that require no logical argument, only a bumper sticker, protest sign, or T-shirt. No matter what the weather happens to be doing -- whether its snowing or scorching hot -- these people will simply point to the nearest window and mumble, "Yeah man, global warming."

The last time I argued like that, I was five years old and in front of a menu board at McDonalds, jumping up and down with my little finger pointed at the picture of a Quarter Pounder.

I can see why the issue would be appealing, though, as it beats fighting that never ending "War on Poverty" which involves going outside and counting all the homeless people. Pointing is even easier.

Watching liberals play scientist is like observing a chimp while it attempts to operate an Easy-Bake oven. It's entertaining, but rather harmless.

But it's the folks who actually call themselves "scientists" who concern me. Until "climate change" became a catchphrase, experts in this field were called "weather men" and we watched them at work on the nightly news. Given their general track record for accuracy, most of them may as well be reading us our astrology charts instead of the weather maps.

A U.S. Congressional hearing on climate change was cancelled this week because of a massive snowstorm in DC. I'm just wondering, how many academic degrees are required for a person to find that funny?

An article in the Los Angeles Times perfectly sums up global warming quackery: "As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said."

The "experts" claim to be able to measure the temperature of the Earth. (I don't want to know where they stick the thermometer.) They travel to remote regions and declare that because ice is melting somewhere and growing somewhere else, that means the Earth is (drumroll) warmer! Duh. Of course it does.

As if a glo-bull warming scientist is going to walk into the finance department of his institution and say, "There's nothing to worry about. It's all crap. My work here is done. Oh well, time for me to get a job at Denny's!"

FOUND THEIR FAITH

This week, a Boston Globe columnist compared global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers. The far-left has finally found faith and religion, and they're about as rational as a suicide bomber when it comes to their convictions.

You know that all objectivity and perspective has gone out the window when a PowerPoint presentation on the issue, featuring esteemed actor Al Gore, gets an Oscar nod. Gore has also announced this week he'll be holding climate change concerts, called Live Earth, in support of his own foundation to "fight" glo-bull warming.

Here's the real "inconvenient truth": People who spend this much time contemplating the weather need to pick up some extra shifts at work, or even take a ballroom dancing or pottery class.

New Logic

An Unlikely Alliance

Pedestrian understandings of arts and sciences often positioned the two against each other.  The arts are seen as subjective, emotive, irrational; the sciences are seen as objective, methodical, and above all rational.  The sciences secure their elevated standing by demonstrating their utility within the world.  The arts, on the other hand, are seen as a pleasurable distraction.  This is, of course, a tragic misunderstanding.  For this interpretation ignores the fact that the sciences were borne of the arts.  The arts came first; sciences came second.  Which activity is superior depends on how one defines categories such as “Art” or “Science”.  But their continued opposition to each other has a long history and the debate about which is superior is as old as Plato and Aristotle.  But does it matter anymore?

The sciences, so secure in their dominance over pedestrian human thought, are experiencing something that is not explainable by science.  They are being “reduced” to art.  I say “reduced” because those who are doing the reducing usually already have a deflated conception of art as well.  Scientists are understandably shocked at the attack on modern science: they are told that their global warming studies are “faulty”; evolution is just a “theory” and so on.    These theories are countered with transparent junk-science which, it seems, is almost put on the same level as Real science. 

They are told that their “objectivity” is a myth and that their “subjective” science cannot be trusted to deliver “truth.”  While it is true that even science (at its best) can only be subjective-objectivism I do not believe many who make cavalier use of these philosophical categories are competent in the least to use them.  Those in the “Arts” say: “how does it feel” while consoling those in the “Sciences”.  The unlikely alliance.

I am reminded of something Vonnegut wrote in his latest book: the world has become divided –not between the artists and the scientists- but between the “thinkers” and the “guessers”.  And the “guessers” are winning the “culture-war”.  And just as we thought the Scopes trial was a distant memory, the Galileo’s of the world find themselves once again shouted down and silenced.

Nous n’avons jamais l’ete modernnes…

Nonetheless, in Canada at least, there is hope.  Global warming is emerging as a key political issue.  Hopefully other countries (who haven’t already done so) will follow suit.  But I think we should all tackle global warming first.  Then we can move on to evolution…

-BK

New Logic

Sundays With Grampa

For Dallas …as promised. 

I recently read the book “Tuesdays With Morrie.”  I had heard about it from many people, who said “it’s so good”, “you have to read it”, “it changed my life” etc…  It was featured in “Oprah’s Book Club” and her viewers lapped it up like thirsty dogs at a pond.  It was a wild commercial success that spawned its own sub-genre, so-to-speak.  Yes, people flooded the bookstores –because Oprah told them to- snatching up copies for themselves and every family member they could think of.  The book easily became a best-seller; its author, a sportscaster-turned writer and self-promoter, became very rich.

For those who are unaware, the book tells the story of a dying professor who is diagnosed with ALS and is suddenly visited by his former student every Tuesday, to learn "lessons about life."  In truth, it’s a touchy-feely, cliché-ridden book that did make me think about how I want to die. 

At one point in the book, the dying man remarks how he is no longer able to wipe his own ass after he takes a shit.  But he’s okay with that because there should be no shame about what is happening to him.  I couldn’t help but think to myself, if I ever get to that point –I think it’s time to call it quits.  Then I asked mysely: Why are people so afraid of dying?  Why do they think that dying is worse than having a nurse wipe your ass?  I could relate to the story –although, I didn’t agree at all with the authors take on it.  And regrettably, it did not change my life.  Now before you judge me a cold, harsh and un-feeling cynic allow me to share my story.

Here’s my tear-jerking, life lesson –if you care to read it.  I’ve tried to tell it as it actually happened, but the clichés have been removed in the hopes of giving a clearer picture of what was actually happening.

SUNDAYS WITH GRAMPA:

It was his constant watery eyes that forced my Grampa to go to the doctor.  It was determined that there was a tumor behind his eye that was cancerous.  “Non-Hotchkins lymphoma” they told him “was very treatable and not always terminal.”  Because it was directly behind his eye, it was impossible to operate.  And so the cancer treatments began, and the tumor grew.  I remember visiting him before he was hospitalized and his face was deformed from the tumor that had been cooking in his skull.  He didn’t look like the Grampa that I knew.  He continued to go to the chemo-therapy and radiation treatment sessions, and was eventually hospitalized. 

We visited frequently, at the hospital, and I wondered how long it would be until he was able to return back home -cancer-free.  The chemotherapy and radiation, incidentally, was taking its toll.  He lost his hair, his throat was always dry and he moved even more slowly than usual.  He once remarked after watching the nightly news: “If they ever find bin-Laden, they should give him chemo.”  And he was serious. 

This was the beginning of “the long good-bye.”  What is the “long good-bye?”  Well, the long good-bye is essentially the story of “Tuesdays with Morrie.”  And believe me it’s pretty hard to romanticize it.  I really don’t think my Grampa wanted to go through with it, in fact, he sometimes remarked that he often thought that it would just be better if they stopped the treatment and let him die.  But they didn’t.  If he knew what he was getting into, he probably wouldn’t have bothered.  But he had daughters and a son and grandchildren who cared about him and didn’t want to see him go.  I did not want to see him go. 

I came home from work one Tuesday night excited because I was preparing to go see him on Wednesday.  My Mom was on the phone, but quickly got off once she heard me coming through the door.  “Hi Mom!  What’s up?” I said.  She looked sad.  The “treatable” cancer killed him. 

He died in a hospital, probably watching television and listening to someone blather on about what was on at that particular moment.  I think he would have preferred dying in his chair at home, on his farm, with his dog that he loved so much.  I wonder (when he was hospitalized) did he know he never going to see his dog, or his farm again?  Did he secretly know that he wasn't going to make it, but went through with it anyway?  Did he know that the chemo-therapy and radiation treatments were for his family more than they were for him?  And if he knew all this, would he have wanted to end it sooner?

Now in retrospect, I think it would have probably been better if he did go earlier.  I think that’s what he wanted.  The “long good-bye” didn’t need to be that long.  He endured so much pain from the treatments, which wore him down, and eventually killed him.  And I believe that the treatments weren’t for him; they were for us.  And I wonder: why are we so naive and selfish?

The "Life Lesson" (if you feel you need it) is this: You can't argue with The Reaper.  He has a schedule to keep.  And sometimes, I think, if we are old or frail, in pain or suffering, maybe we should welcome him.

POSTSCRIPT:

This is just my rough draft.  I’m sending the expanded version to the publisher shortly.  Hopefully it will get published; Oprah will read it and recommend it.  Then I’ll be rich.  Yes, there’s nothing like cashing in off of human tragedy.  After all, that’s what the Oprah Industrial Complex is best at.

New Logic

On The Children of Men

Children of Men (2006): Cuaron’s film based on Phyllis Dorothy James’s book shows us a dystopic future where the unimaginable has become ordinary.  We witness the gradual extinction of the human race: mankind has become an endangered species.  But our extinction does not come at the hands of technology, nature or God –as is customary is many films.  Rather, it comes (unwillingly) at the hands of women.  Since women are no longer able to bear children, the human race has descended into hopeless barbarity where political factions slaughter each other.  And just when all hope appears lost, there is hope: a young pregnant black girl whose conception appears as a modern miracle.  The mission is to escort her to an island where the “greatest minds” on the planet have apparently segregated themselves and are at work on saving mankind from itself.

There are at least three things that are interesting.  First, the “greatest minds” of the “human project” are not portrayed as exclusively as “scientists” –as is customary in many science-fiction films -but Kantian humanists who (presumably) are under threat in “civilization” and must sequester themselves not only to work on their task, but to protect themselves.  The reason why they continue to labour in isolation on behalf of mankind is not exactly known but it seems reasonable to assume that their attempt to redeem the Enlightenment cannot be completed within the established society. 

Second, our unwitting protagonist is an ordinary man empowered not by weapons but by conscience.  But he is an ironic character in that he is a bureaucrat: he works for the government that, apparently, is unable to govern.  Thus he is an absurd character whose livelihood has no meaning.  And yet, he is awkwardly positioned as the “action hero” –minus the guns, the bombs, the macho bravado and so on.  His “action” is motivated entirely out of love and a naïve hope that he can do something remarkable if he only tries. 

Third.  The human savior is another ironic character: a black woman.  Her gender and colour are revealing.  Her colour is revealing because it is reminiscent of those who (as far as we know) were the first homo-sapiens to walk the earth.  Also, it is the colour of those who have been historically enslaved by “civilised” people.  Her gift to humanity is not merely a child but something that women are biologically charged with giving: time.  And so she is completely ironic in that she is once again enslaved by humanity (through her pregnancy) but, this time, literally charged with delivering mankind from extinction.

And so Children of Men is the ironic Kantian morality play of our time where Enlightenment has progressed into its opposite and humanitas is our only hope.  But the recurring message of the film is perhaps the most ironic motif of all.  It reminds us that men may have built civilisation.  But it was women who gave birth to it.

BK