Kerry O’Brien recently interviewed author Don Watson about corporate speak and the demise of plain language.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2707638.htm

O'BRIEN: “And now "Bendable Learnings" is his third literary assault on what he calls "noxious management drivel". He contends that the poison is spreading beyond corporations, bureaucracy and politics, and through our entire culture from the suburban business to schools, sporting clubs, even the Church.”

Government has an evolving arsenal of buzz words and Don’s examples - 'synergies', 'accessibility', 'going forward made me laugh in recognition. Or the corporatised ‘down-balance’ instead of ‘sackings’ or ‘retrenchments’.

If you don’t speak the language you are at a considerable disadvantage in some departments. Words like probity, governance, Codes of Conduct, APS Values are mouthed a lot to give the appearance of modern and just governments, the reality can be quite different.

I hold my hand up as being guilty of using public service drivel at times.

It can be addictive when you are surrounded by it in the political arena, like a form of brainwashing. I try hard not to sound too much like a public servant when dealing with the public.

Public policy and corporate jargon changes over time depending on the latest political catch phrase – words like 'access' and 'inclusion' come to mind and the mindless “working families” - some of them valid words, losing value when over-used or politicised.

Have we become a society where what we say is more relevant than what we do? Where politicians and corporate executives speak volumes but say nothing?

Joe Hockey and Jon Stanhope would win my vote for the politicians who speak the-speak but don’t actually say anything nor do they respond openly or honestly to questions.

Lindsay Tanner would be my pick for the most honest.

Kevin Rudd is a bit of a catch-phrase speaker and in this I think John Howard was the better orator.

Does anyone have any favourites among the corporate and government speak that drive you crazy? Like Don Watson, do you think corporate speak is invading other corners of society, like Church, sport and community goups once considered immune?

I OBJECT'

this is clearly a troll

[ok actually

havnt got thought about it yet
but just ticked..the email notice box

and am watching

my word mangling be done
next time

perhaps

whats in my cut and paste
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3114&page=0

oh yeah...the demise of evolution
what other demises...demise de mise
tax the rich...return the fed...dont bomb iran
scale down war...save the kids
bring docs to account
when really was jesus born

nop
got nuthin
but
im watching...the demise of the earthy of the plain english/lash

Dear Pelly,

A few years ago - our public service department
went through the process of "Re-structuring."
We all had to re-apply for our positions.
And buzzwords were the order of the day in our
job interviews. Words like:

Downsizing, Bestpractice, Benchmarking, Client-focused,
Customer-centric, Empowerment, Cutting-edge, Mission-Statement,
Value-added, Paradigm shift, Enable, Strategize - and so on
became the norm. There were no cut-backs - there was downsizing.
And you had to speak the speak - or else you were left out.
And the ones who best - spoke the speak - (have to laugh) - were not
the front line desk staff actually dealing with the everyday problems - but the administration who insisted on this
language being used by everyone during
the re-structuring process.

As for politicians? well, as we all know - polspeak - is
a special language used by pollies. It's a technique of
saying something as vaguely as possible - so that they
can deny it later, if need be. Malcolm Turnbull is an expert
at it. Though in reality, I guess they all are.

With today's technology - and texting - kids have a language
all their own - it's a code that takes a while in some
cases to decipher. I remember when I first started posting
on this Forum - I didn't know what LOL (laughing out loud)
stood for.

2 Y's UR
2 Y's UB
ICUR 2 Y's 4 me!

Pelican,

There's nothing worse than the Public Service's 1990s obsession with mission statements. It is verbal diahorrea of the worst type that is NEVER said with any conviction or intent. It's the public service equivalent of a free-mason's handshake - once you've mastered it, all doors open toward the inner sanctum. Needless to say, the sooner it's consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.

The one that annoys me the most these days is the appendage " ... going forward", particularly from economists.

PROMINENT ECONOMIST: "The economy is heading for the upside, going forward".

Like, hello, where else are we going? Backwards?

Reading between the lines, all this is, is a way of saying "Hi, I'm an important swinging dick". Yeah, if you say so.

As for the most honest politician, I agree about Tanner - he confronts issues head on in a fairly sober way. But there's still a question mark in my mind as to what he will achieve. I actually think the Liberals are more honest though. However, their problem is that when they get into power they are pretty much only talking to themselves and not the population at large. If you look at someone like George Brandis, his emphasis is on being absolutely truthful and precise. The problem is that it makes him look almost puritanical. So, as in all things, a balance needs to be struck between being honest and being representative of the public at large, IMO. It's a hard balance to strike.

RobP
Yes you have to love the 'going forward' it is a beauty. I really find it quite demoralising at times and with latest staff cuts there is so much tension and the more dissent in the area the worse the bulldust speak comes out.

The lowest ranks in our deparment are being cut to fit in with the PM's budget cuts with senior officer roles being continually replaced.

A consultancy report which cost thousands was used to legitimize the decision to not replace staff at the lower levels. It is always the same in the PS the doers go and the number of oversighters continues to grow. And with it real services to those most in need are reduced.

Probably time for me to look for another job - which I will.

Foxy you are right - interview speak is another world in itself. You have to use lots of phrases like whole-of-government, enabling, synergies.

OUG
I am not sure of your meaning but I hope you can think on the topic a bit more and contribute later.

ok...really..i love engl-ish...it allows for a lot of isms..has naming words..that have definitive/obvious connotation..[as well as the hidden subversive/meanings..[that casts spells..in the spelling

words are sacred....sacred/words=s/words...and the pen is the mightiest-sword...when you write the histry..[its..'his'..who_writes-his-'story'...

i love that words have powers..[powers that lift up..[and power to bring down...the trouble being...those not knowing the words/meanings[are under its spell]...so im for dis-spelling a few of the...buzz-words..we accept..via everyday meaning...but..that in law..mean other things

take a licence...;means..permission..to do that other wise statuted as illegal..[for you]..to/do]...see statutes..are in acts..statutes REGULATE..the powers of the govt...the[public]..servant...not us..the people...govt servants..cant touch the people..[govt was formed..for them..to serve us

see..when we fill in one of the forms..[of the servant]...say apply for car rego..[or marrage..licence..[or live birth certification...we need to apply...[apply=beg...we beg for a licence..thus fall..subject to..the act..[designed to control the acts..of public servents..[govt]

when govt..registers our vehicle/marrage/birth/qualifications..it becomes..a legal mine-field...the worst thing is..the legal maxim says/..a beggor knows..for what he begs...so when/we..apply...using their forms...thus we fall..under the act.,..only because we applied..UNDER..the act...

the act's..not for us..[its to control..empowered public servants..from abusing us..with govt excess..[and as only public sevants..[and traders...need apply..[under the act]...they just assume..we know..for what/we begged..[app-lied]

see it's all about..legal standing..in court the judge even asks..if/you UNDER/stand...legally meaning..do you stand UNDER the law..[ie..U..are a public servant..under the act...

and..the mug in the dock..says..yes your honour..[your/whorship[warship..because its a maritime/contract/civil..juristiction.....i under-stand...lol..idiots.....[legal term imbisile..[because you have a fool..for a lawyer]

we may explain it..next time..that../what he just signed..[signing info true...is legally a binding oath...govt has contractual/civil/maritime/criminal..juristiction...ONLY..because were made..to sign con-tracts...govt calls forms..formed under acts...

NOT/via our uninformed concent..yet..dont inform us..of what were actually doing..when we declare..their in-form info..true..[faulsly]

..even our date of birth..isnt..'of our/own recall'..[see birth..means berthed..[landed cargo/shattles..]..that is accordingly/duely..registered...

when we register/a vehicle..or a child...legally we only have use of it/..[cause govt holds..the lawfull/bill of title..[cause we/signed it away...when we re-gist-ered it..just via..the act of..registration

[the cargo emerges..from the waters..and are accorded..a berthing certificate...that..got registered..this sets us up..into UNDER standing..when-ever we detail the birth detail;s...we fall...under the act

LOL@UOG calling someone a troll.

Plain English?! How will consultants ever survive?

As for mission statements etc being good for organisations, those were all invented so consultants and contractors could have some generic models to get their legs into organisations and to help them talk with management. After all, there was no way that they were going to put the resources and effort into really understanding the business and processes of their 'clients' (more likely, victims) and such models and new-speak gave them faux legitimacy and power.

The funniest line of spin I ever heard was invented by a consultancy firm: we were always to tell targets (CEOs, senior managers) we could 'add value'. What a joke, the idea was to get a toe in, lever the workers out and replace them - all care and no responsibility while tapping into the nearest $$ artery.

Nothing has changed.

StG
Yes I am not sure how I gained troll status. Never mind. :)

Cornflower
Since the government started expanding outsourcing, noxious management drivel has seeped into the corporate sector so they can compete in the same language.

A lot of these consultancies are bought in to legitimize unpopular decisions and to remove the responsibility to external 'impartial' advice. When you think about it, managers are paid to manage and should be able to harness the expertise within their own agencies to make these decisions.

You would think we would learn but we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

dammm..it were a throwaway line..for fuc sake..every one knows im the troll...looking for linkage to post stuff..i see as adding to our olo experience..like the demise of plain english...is a de-liberated systemised attack..to explain..not ruperts post about paid content/cointent..or the other cccrap the media calls news...i put the full blame on media spin

here is some more spin unwinding

October 09, 2009
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
Thomas Lifson

America is being asked to spend trillions on a theory,..some of whose foundational data has been destroyed,..allegedly for a lack of storage space.

If the data cannot be reviewed,..it cannot be trusted, scientifically.

Via Christine Hall and the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/10/05/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-original-climate-data

In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data,..the Competitive Enterprise Institute..petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.

In mid-August the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU)disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data..for its global surface temperature data set..because of an alleged/lack of storage space.

The CRU data..have been the basis for several of the major international studies..that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU's destruction of data,..however,..severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

In a declaration filed with CEI's petition,Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU's revelation.."a totally new element"..that "violates basic scientific principles,..and "throws even more doubt"..on the claims of global warming alarmists.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/

This data destruction has the odor of fraud about it.

equal to the demise of our buzz ridden new speak..where news is sport..and piece prizes..are gifted to the ruler/pres of the biggest warmongering [dynomight]..consumer..ever...its almost like a payback of the proffits of war..[paid to the nobel patent right..to blow people/things up
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120477783171&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT

i wouldnt have to troll..news..if the media published..the..real news
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

>>It is always the same in the PS the doers go and the number of oversighters continues to grow. And with it real services to those most in need are reduced.<<

Pelican,

Too true. My experience exactly - the system tends to first grind the doers into the dust (and then out the door) with minimal recognition and reward, while the management disappears above the cloud layer into some kind of parallel universe. The PS would do well to get rid of lots of their middle-ranking senior officers who earn in the $80-110k wage range for merely spending their entire careers writing emails to one another and pretending to be of some kind of value to the Government and the public. It's getting to the stage where the lazy element in the PS is causing those who are prepared to work for some greater good to be either stressed out or deadened. A clean-out and re-equilibration of the PS is long overdue.

Gooseberry time. (spin term)

Many of you are using buzz words, idiom,(PS) in your attacks on the same. Make up your minds are they good or bad. If they are bad and you want plain English then do so.

Personally I gave up that fight years ago. Language changes constantly, the argument about usage has been around for for ever.
Do you really hanker for Chaucer, that was common English of the time, Shakespearean style maybe Dickensian phraseology (all words of the latter two are still in the Oxford)?

Phraseology tend like literature tends to follow trends they change with every generation.
Consider these 'trouble is...', 'what ever', 'eeeww', etc.
Bits, Bytes, etc were once Buzz words (which is also a buzz word)
Question which/whose English do you mean?

Speech making/ politicians have always been big on emotion low on detail.

Pelican, Howard a better orator? 'Repudiate '(bloody every thing), 'Core and non core promises', 'Off-shore Detention centres' , 'Work choices' come on girl he was full of it.

Rudd full of catch phrases. That is oratory generally simple, pithy, emotionally charged slogans.

Consider any politician and what is remembered are the catch phrases.
"….square deal......"
"I had a dream...."
" I may not agree with what you say..."
"....Ask not what your country can do for you....."
"One small step for mankind...."
"Reds under the bed....."
"Yes we can..."
Test. The above were famous speeches that were made memorable because of the catch phrase.
To prove my point who said them and then what was the context then name 2 other speeches by the same person.
BTW there is an error in there for fun.

Spin is also used in a buzz word context (modern).

If you are just Trojan horsing to bash the PS have a good rave but remember too that it is Your spin...made urban legend by constant telling. I think you'll find it harder to justify with facts. Given over time the PS is a growing. Private Enterprise wax and wane too.
(spot the buzz words in that?)
Anyone not get my point?

Examinator
Your point is clearly made. I don't deny that language inevitably changes and evolves to suit the times. No-one is mourning the passing of Chaucer.

When you work around bulldust a lot it becomes not only tedious but comic after a time. I wasn't around in the 30s, 40s or 50s so I don't know if the spin was more of the same but done in a different way. Certainly if you read old newspaper clippings the standard of journalism was very different, much more straightforward, factual, well researched and not as opinionated.

The fact is people are tiring of the spin of politicians and the growing cynicism reflects this dissatisfaction in our governments. I think it has got worse or maybe we have got smarter I am not sure which.

This 'rant' is more than just being tired by buzz words, it is about a wish for more honesty in what those in power say and do.

>>Your spin...made urban legend by constant telling. I think you'll find it harder to justify with facts.<<

Examinator,

Doesn't every legend have a kernel of truth to it? And, the facts, don't forget are interpreted by the winners, just like they say history is written by the winners. So, your argument is merely reflecting who wins as opposed to the truth of the claims? After all, "losers" (a very subjective term) in life are never portrayed in a positive light no matter what they do.

There's no doubt that the APS is nowhere near as strategic in policy and administrative terms as it was, say, 20 years ago. I'm sure this could be clearly and demonstratively proved. This, to my mind, points to a thinning out of talent, by one means or another, in the ranks. In fact, I know it is so because I have seen what was there before and what has replaced it, and the trend, in terms of overall standards, is not good.

One of the terms that annoyed me for a long time was "workshop". "We're going to a counseling workshop... [bring your own hammer]..." - it just seemed a silly way to describe a talk fest.

A current irritation for me is the phrase, "... rolling out." Various trendy government speakers are rolling out this and someone else is rolling out that; as if they've deployed a legion of tanks across the State or something - it's all supposed to be big and busy and do, do, do. At every presentation for the past year or two someone has announced "... a roll out" that they're busy "... rolling out."

In fact, a couple of good, basic vocabulary words would be much more accurate: distributing; disseminating; circulating; spreading, and so on.

OUG: Haha brilliant post-modernist you are ! "Worship - warship" - you're exceptional!

<"see it's all about..legal standing..in court the judge even asks..if/you UNDER/stand...legally meaning..do you stand UNDER the law..[ie..U..are a public servant..under the act...

and..the mug in the dock..says..yes your honour..[your/whorship[warship..because its a maritime/contract/civil..juristiction..">

How They Brainwash A Nation
Text size
Federal Jack
October 9, 2009

Editor’s note: As documented by the late Antony C. Sutton, Russian Marxism was created by Wall Street. “The question now in the readers’ minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks? No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entree to power.” This effort “appears to be the foreign counterpart of Carroll Quigley’s claim that J.P. Morgan infiltrated the domestic left. Morgan also infiltrated the international left,” Sutton claims.

This amazing interview was done back in 1985 with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It’s shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rezel2u2V0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.infowars.com/the-disappearing-middle-class-dream/
http://www.infowars.com/reid-likely-to-make-entire-health-bill-an-amendment-to-unrelated-tax-bill-that-house-passed-in-march/

Government and corporate media prepare to tell the masses they are unethical for opposing the vaccine.
http://www.infowars.com/corporate-media-is-not-taking-the-vaccine-unethical/

private police-ing forces
http://www.infowars.com/ravenwood-comes-to-america/
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-strips-arizona-sheriff-of-authority-to-patrol-for-illegal-immigrants/

why
http://www.infowars.com/government-to-use-swine-flu-for-another-control-mechanism/
http://www.infowars.com/criminalizing-everyone/
http://www.infowars.com/patriot-act-sneak-and-peek-searches-targeted-drug-offenders-not-terrorists/
http://www.infowars.com/abc-reporter-discovers-broad-terror-net/

http://www.infowars.com/kids-sing-for-cnn-obamacare-propaganda/
http://www.infowars.com/elbaradei-says-nuclear-israel-number-one-threat-to-mideast/

dollar demise
http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-on-the-dollar-demise/
http://www.infowars.com/former-imf-economist-obama-missed-opportunity-to-reform-financial-system/
http://www.infowars.com/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-ignorance-is-strength/

pelican, Such rebellion! Be careful.

I once abruptly ended a job interview after this HR woman told me there would be 3 interviews, one with her, then a proper interview (technical), then a personality test, and then she began reciting the company's mission statement. As soon as she had finished her mission statement, I stood up and told her this isn't the company I'm looking for and walked out. She was quite puzzled. The agency was not pleased, but I saved time for a lot of people.

Key Stakeholders is my favourite. Or is it key Steakholders?

I think I've medalled! Or mabe just podiumed.

gr8 2 c u! Wil spk l8tr.

'The fact is people are tiring of the spin of politicians and the growing cynicism reflects this dissatisfaction in our governments. I think it has got worse or maybe we have got smarter I am not sure which.'

I think you really have to blame the populace and the media. Politicians cant say anything without being deliberately misinterpreted, and they must say something about everything. Actually even the Australian cricket captain has a hell of a lot of media work, and sports people have learnt to say even less than politicians, and they have nothing to hide!

I agree with this from Tony Blair

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6744581.stm

Frequently the problem is as much assembling the facts as giving them. Make a mistake and you quickly transfer from drama into crisis. In the 1960s the government would sometimes, on a serious issue, have a Cabinet lasting two days.

It would be laughable to think you could do that now without the heavens falling in before lunch on the first day. Things harden within minutes. I mean you can't let speculation stay out there for longer than an instant.

I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity.

Love your work.........

Are you with me yet?
To all intents and purposes the totality of the arguments (each and every one) would lead us to believe that, all things being equal, we should quit our reliance on the project in question. It is absolutely and abundantly clear that as far as I am concerned at the end of the day, we basically need new directions. We need to roll out a better customer interface.
At this moment in time we currently take the process of scheduling the roll out of prioritized initiatives to the point where no one can actually understand what we are talking about. We attempt to leverage off grass roots thinking at the coal-face, but at the end of the day will have little tangible, customer focussed material to go on. Even the grass roots, whoever they are, have long since forgotten what it is we actually do.
Actually, and as a matter of fact, during the period from start-up to the present day it has been one of growing confusion, jargon and unmeaningful communications. We tried to embed a behavioural & cultural environment interface into all our key business processes. We integrated all our risk silos, and talked up the process at seminars and workshops, indeed we over-workshopped in some employee’s minds. And at the end of the day we are dysfunctional as a corporate entity despite some serious efforts at ground-truthing our modus operandi. In my opinion we have also marginalized our clients and made our client interface hard to understand. I mean to say its not rocket science after all!

Last but not least, and with all other things being equal we obviously need to attend to the fact of the matter. I would like to take this opportunity to recommend that in point of fact, and the final analysis, regarding the collaborative, scalable & customizable work, it was never destined to fly well. The fact of the matter is that the fly-wheel has fallen off, and at the end of the day, nobody can find it.

Pelican,
don't you mean
“Spin” = 'manipulation of words to emphasise the speakers perspective, advantage?', ''buzz words” = words that in the current (popular) idiom or phraseology'. imagine using the the descriptions of each and every buzz word when you wrote.
Most are legitimate if some what nuanced.
Perhaps you mean 'simple' English?
How simple ? Tabloids (sensational instant answers if superficial analysis that plays to the mass market TV 7, 9 10 news) wrote to a year 8 level standard
The broadsheet. ( Age , Aust)now about year 11/12 broadsheets .
Some reflect the tendency towards specialised audience (i.e. 'fin review', 'insiders', 'Sunday business', 'Lateline business' et al Ch 2/SBS). These are generalised not exclusive.


News paper stories were more factual(?) some were and some weren't. We have journalists rather than reporters..... Journalists add 'interpretation' (infotainment), reporters just reported Why? The media would argue they are fulfilling a want (see my topic “who's the villain”, and “is this racism”) or are they simply creating a market from potential ( my response to the article 'is the media biased').

Now we come to politicians (yuck). If one really examines their speeches then and now nothing much has changed what has changed are the starkness of the differences between the wit and the combativeness . One could blame the media's obsession with ever more sensation and their competition to grab the public's attention( topic 'desexualising the law') and desensitising /conditioning the public.

I would humbly suggest that the apparent predominance of spin is really a manifestation of the modern propensity towards sensation, short simple answers as opposed to insightful analysis.

The emphasis is on commercial (financial success or at least wants rather than needs).
Easier to play to base instincts than the frontal lobes. The world is becoming more sensual less contemplative? Some scientist think so. See http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/09/2709586.htm implication .

IMHO one can't isolate the topic of spin without considering the reasons for it. Then again I am that odd beast, examinator ant.

RobP
Urban myths are different to cultural myths
See program 'Myth Busters'

Perceptions aren't necessarily facts. There is no substitute for thinking/questioning. Without that it's entertainment....fantasy.

"I would humbly suggest that the apparent predominance of spin is really a manifestation of the modern propensity towards sensation, short simple answers as opposed to insightful analysis. "

Possibly but sometimes the insightful analysis can be a wordy minefield as well. I have read government job Ads in the paper and by the end of the description still none the wiser for what the role involves. I will see if I can find an example.

Trouble is using your analogy, is to see everyone's comments as spin even yours on the passport issue or any other number of threads you have posted. My spin, your spin, anybody's spin. I suggest not everything is spin. I guess people have to make up their own minds based on the subject matter.

I have been associated with government one way or another for over 20 years and I can say from my experience it has got worse.

Pynchme's 'workshop' reminded me of a recent one on Emotional Intelligence. Basically it was just another way of discussing how to deal with difficult people, how to manage etc. We are good at coming up with new phrases or words for very simple meanings.

Even the humble sign is now 'signage'.

Someone mentioned 'value-adding'. I have seen very little real value added in these scenarious at work. It tends to mean we have to add value to what we do to justify existence rather than valuing the real work that is actually already being done and needs to be done. It usually means exagerating the importance of a task as necessary when really it has no or little value.

Pelican,
We are an emotional species life therefore simply isn't a series of binary actions/reactions.
Blunt language has it's own problems in that it doesn't express, acknowledge, respect others as people.

Complex thoughts need complex language but people tend to abbreviate and find/invent words to cover concepts
I agree 'bendable learning' is a mystery to me.
I agree that there are document written that defy common understanding or are simply badly written (yes I've done my share of both) don't throw the baby out with the water.

One example I remember was trying to configure a mini main frame computer for a customer. He simply could get his head around the details needed by the factory to build it. To his mind he wanted to run this product with this many screens and that was it. In the end WE had to hire an independent tech to explain it to him. Any thing we said was BS buzz words etc.
Likewise when trying to change attitudes in workshops it can appear a bit PC but I can tell you if the staff identify client by being in their view 'difficult' it does affect the way they relate to them.
E.g asking a customer to 'sign a Contract' are hard words and inclined to spook the customer because they focus the client's attention on the risk. By merely saying can you 'authorise this agreement agreement' this places the emphasis on the client's authority and is up to 20-30% more likely to sign. Weasel words? perhaps but it DOES CHANGE ATTITUDES.

As a parent maybe later is better than a flat NO! (you whinging little erk...[optional])

I admit I tend to mentally harden language in speeches, in sales pitches (be that a retailer, the girl who's washing her hair(I recon I did wonders for girl's hair hygiene as a young lad) , poli or the *&%$#%*& boss) but that's life.

If I do have problems on OLO it is the superficial way some approach interesting/important topics. Then there are the instant answer brigade.

Examinator,

>>Perceptions aren't necessarily facts. There is no substitute for thinking/questioning. Without that it's entertainment....fantasy.<<

I have worked in the PS since 1992. I submit that what I am saying is based on what I've seen happen over that time. I've seen the fads come and go, I've seen way-above-average staff being labelled as yesterday's men and gotten rid of in spill-and-fill processes. I've spoken to experienced people who've been in the organisation for 30 years saying that, in hindsight, they could have predicted very accurately which staff were going to get the chop based on their relationship with management. The common theme was that if you threatened management, even inadvertently, you got the chop - the worst form of internal politics IMO. So what fills the space? People that learn not to rock the boat and who consequently toe the line. This must lower standards as they start to second-guess or kowtow to management and don't think through issues and problems for themselves.

This is not made up or just perception, but real.

Examinator
Blunt language can be rude and impolite. However, there is a difference between straightforward talk and blunt language. It is possible with the large array of words at our disposal to be direct and honest and at the same time keep our manners. On occasion this may not always be possible and sometimes a good honest airing can do wonders.

Methinks you are reading too much into this.

I am happy for you to challenge my view about the demise of plain English - but I happen to disagree. Even in the area of IT it is possible to speak in layman's language.

The issue of language is discussed much between public servants and non-public servants alike and someone obviously thought there was enough in it to write a book about it.

The biggest issue is the modern corporate speak trend for language to disguise what is really going on. The tendency to create the image of doing something has become more important than the act of doing. It comes down to being seen to be accountable. This is dishonest and the 'demise of plain English' is the fallout of maintaining that illusion.

RobP is right about the fate of dissenting public servants and most just keep their mouths shut unless they have nothing to lose.

the goals of the commie manifesto...lie at the root of this buzz speak..the state licences its oficials to do that otherwise illegal..[to its servants]..not its people

see govt wasnt formed to regulate...its people...but to regulate those doing business..with its people...thus we see the state licence permissions..regulate via licencing..but things went astray in the 30's...govt regulation of its currencies failed...and the worlds banks went broke

overnight everything changed...govts no longer issued its own money...this was now done by the banruptsy admin[bankers]..govt overnight had to lend from the bankers...under ursury..with intrest

overnight the new rules of bankruptsy..changed the rules of govt...it is no co-incidence we are run by govt filled with lawyer's...licenced by the state..over night we had income tax apply to wages...when true income..is gain made by no value adding..so buzz words were created

the many headed beast[hydra..took over running govt...in time people got licence to do many things...but in applying for licence..join the servant...see..before..those working for the state[..and those with title's..ie licence from the state..were excluded from election

but over night we became mr../a licence/rank in the forces..thus all subject to licencing...licence..is permission...to do that...OTHERWISE ILLEGAL...state is a licener of illegal stuff..if its illegal...how come govt can selectivly permit licence...was solely to protect the public weal

now it oppresses the public weal..in fact feeds off the public trough..treats its people like collateral...takes our promises...and creates credit..

[try getting any credit without you signing oath...in blue/black ink..without applying..apply means beg...a begger is presumed to know for what he begs..

but in taking oath...a thing jesus advised us..not to do...matthew 5;33-37..25;16-25...revealing..its little wonder..the state supports removing religion...athiesm..

its just the latest trick..its em-ploying spin..to further enslave its own people..by hiding the truth..from its people..[it now treats as a cash cow...via buzz speak/spin

we are living in coorperate hell...by applying we have become subject to govt taxation/govt licence..govt deception...run by lawyers..doing illegal things...via licence and rego..you get permission to use...have use off..but not ever own...anything you registered

you dont own your kids nor your home/car...its all allowed/per-mitted use...to hide it needs constant spin..stop begging govt..were under admiralty law...incorperation/lien

I fully concur with Pelican's and RobP's experiences of the manipulation of language within the public service.

"value added" - justification for change for change's sake
"transparent process" - 'I have covered my arse and there is nothing you can do about it'.
"key selection criteria" - if you can speak the lingo you will get the position, has nothing to do with ability to perform the work.
"in the fullness of time" - boss-speak for 'I have the power and will wield it if and when it suits me'.

This is just off the top of my head - I don't really want to dwell too long on the B/S I encountered while working in the P/S. I would also suggest that similar doublespeak occurs within any large organisation, it does not have to be confined to the public sector.

For some entertaining, if disturbing reading, check out the following:

http://webserve.govst.edu/pa/Introduction/doublespeak_awards.htm

Fractelle, Pelican,Rob

Challenge? not really folk more along the line that pointing out that there is more to the phenomenon than the undeniable cynical side.

Sadly private enterprise suffers the same symptoms . The PS has *more* protective(?) rules to hide behind..

I wasn't meaning to convey either an attack or deny that “buzz words” Likewise rules (laws) aren't (ab)used by those for their self interest. After all humans are humans.

In the simplest terms *I* can , Where do you draw the line on words and phrases?
Would make any real difference ?

I also wonder if what you are experiencing is the concoction of problems. i.e.
'Paul syndrome'= people who have been promoted beyond their competence (seniority).

"they tend to become entities unto themselves and develop as their primary purpose their own longevity and growth". *Practices are created to help run the organisation and people employed* , without a counter influence the consequence is top heavy management and bloated staff numbers ergo law of diminishing returns. (galloping inertia [GI])

In this context the management try to re-motivate staff, increase efficiency by introducing attitudinal changes , goals/objectives etc. There is a lot more to it but GI tends to resist change and is undermined by self interest, think 'Chinese whispers' on speed.

In essence it isn't the language so much as a combination of individuals and the organisation as an entity of its own.
Therefore merely changing the language used will change little.

I am always reminded of the blind man who having first encountered an elephant held the tail and declared that the beast was thin and ropey.

“Superficial /generalising reasoning provide neither light nor understanding just the fog of ignorance and prejudice..... the only fruit that grows there is unhappiness and resentment.” Wise saying.

No pontificating/prejudice intended just a contribution to exercise the synapses. As always

look, I'm afraid you have all fallen at the first hurdle. In 2009, it is essential that every sentence be prefaced with the word 'look'. Failure to do so may cause the listener to not notice that you aren't that interesting.
Look UOG, I am glad that you love english. Perhaps that will encourage you to try it some day.

Ha ha - well said Grim. The preface "you know" is also a favoured one.

Fractelle
I agree it is not limited to the public sector.

I started this topic because I saw Kerry O'Brien's interview with Watson and was thankful someone had written a book about the nature of language in corporate life.

As you get older it is quite an insult to the intelligence when officers put these 'weasel' words together often in the wrong context, just in order to be accepted.

It is easy to be cynical about the public service and, like lawyers, the service ia an easy target but that does not mean we shouldn't pull them up and strive for transparent government even if it might be a pipe dream.
:)

Grim LOL :D

I just heard this little gem a few minutes ago on the (Victorian) radio - John Faine 774 interviewing Peter Batchelor, State Minister for Energy. When asked why, instead of spending money propping up the brown coal industry, not invest in the infrastructure on clean renewable energy?

Peter replied. ".... they were exploring a portfolio response..."

WTF?

Well I am going to leave you people with it for a while. I am off for about five weeks so play nice. :)

Fractelle and all

Peter's answer means "we're still working out our response"
The logical subtext is "we're between a rock and a hard place on this" i.e. "It is politically too hard"
To be fair how long would he last as a shadow minister (or be elected let alone endorsed as the Liberal Candidate) if he answered as "it's politically too hard....on one hand we'd lose the support of business which is vital for Victoria and on the other the unions would shred us....the political reality is were on a hiding to nothing on this one."

Sure a 'minority' ie some of the thinkers would appreciate the 'straight forward language' but the majority of 'his' electors wouldn't.
Ask your self then where is the real problem here?
Two answers.
- The party structure that is about party power rather than the long term good of Aust.

- The short term selfish perspective of the population....my job/comfort zone is more important.

NB the Labor would be in the same boat.

Neither am I defending his position nor the efficacy system. I have stated several times that the party system is, from a public benefit objective both very selective in its beneficiaries or near dysfunctional.

Conclusion :- superficial analysis therefore instant solutions or obfuscation. Changing the language used is a bit like aspirin for a brain tumour....

The question then becomes what is the practical alternative?

On OLO this level of analysis is pontificating to deep isn't it

Examinator

I had already deduced the meaning behind Peter Batchelor's words for myself. But I am pleased you spent some time thinking about it.

BTW Peter Batchelor IS Labor - not the SHADOW minister, he IS the Minister for Energy for the Victorian Labor government and I doubt he will ever be trying out for a Liberal selection any time soon.

The LABOR state government is completely out of touch with climate and sustainability issues. They are proceeding with a desal plant and piping water from regional Victoria to Melbourne, BEFORE implementing any other water catchment and recycling schemes. Of course with desal and piped projects private enterprise can charge for water, whereas smaller water catchments would only benefit small business and the hoi polloi such as you and I.

As for being between a rock and hard place - they are too beholden to the coal and other big business and, unfortunately for the long term benefit of the state they govern; too gutless. They will lose the next election (having simply been in power too long and not achieved a lot) to be replaced by a Lib coalition who are even further entrenched with big business.

And I have managed to work this out all by myself.

Pelican

Enjoy your time away, after another little disagreement with OLO's CEO about a post I made which was deleted, which, like the last one he deleted was on topic, relevant and courteous, however GY claims to be in fear of litigation regarding claims made by another poster, whose claims are actually common knowledge throughout the media and internet - but when you're the boss you can do what you like.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9484&page=0#152624

Fractelle

Sorry no condescension intended I was responding to the W..?

How did I confuse him with a lib? Not yet back into swing with Vic politics!

PS I was making the point that the poli is driven not led and who drives them....ultimately we (the collective )voters do, to all.

It does still leave the question I posed open.
What is a PRACTICAL alternative? Given that most people don't want to think.
PS. the last line of the post was a preemptive strike at criticism of me from others who read my posts with preconceptions and poison PCs at the ready.

censure is a funny thing
recall sadam insane...and the many/many other security agency shrills [oppressing their own people globally]

here is one more
hope musscle leanie...meanie dont sue me
noting the recent[yesterdays purge...not rep[orted on your ...lol..media/news agencies...re stalins kids suing for a news paper printing TRUTH

well court threw their complaints out
because they were true

MI5 Money Got Mussolini Started in Politics
Text size
Tom Kington
The Guardian
October 13, 2009

History remembers Benito Mussolini..as a founder member of the original Axis of Evil,..the Italian dictator who ruled his country with fear...and forged a disastrous alliance with Nazi Germany.

But..a previously...unknown area...*.lol....of Il Duce’s CV has come to light:..his..brief career..as a British agent.

Archived documents have revealed that Mussolini got his start in politics in 1917 with the help of a £100 weekly wage from MI5.

For the British intelligence agency, it must have seemed like a good investment. Mussolini, then a 34-year-old journalist,..was not just willing to ensure Italy continued to fight alongside the allies in the first world war by publishing propaganda in his paper.

He was also willing to send in the boys to “persuade” peace protesters to stay at home.

Mussolini’s payments were authorised by Sir Samuel Hoare, an MP and MI5’s man in Rome, who ran a staff of 100 British intelligence officers in Italy at the time.

Read entire article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy

not read latest Watson book but it seems that unless he changes his menu somewhat he will end up doing the full circle that he is so repetitious being Politically UNCorrect he will become PC.

So it gave me a great buzz [you might say I was boooooowied] by a very very rare bit of satire from the best in the business on Weasel Words, ie the Americans themselves

This is a dig at the way the USA govt "sanitised" homosexuals [inventing the word "gay"] when after doing a SWOT Analysis it was realised that infecting half of Africa with AIDS was a good and NOT bad thing, given the Trillions made by drug industry [aka Amer govt] and the fact that in next Oil War it will be simple to take African oil if everyone is dead.

I will post this now and go look for the url

UOG, the only credible thing you could offer a thread called 'the demise of Plain English' is an epitaph.
suplyd... in yur ... own imtinitabel ... stile, off... coarse.

Eggcorns like 'definately' and 'intensive purposes' aside, my current favourite indicator of someone who cheated their way through high school physics to get their everlovin' degree is the misuse of the word, 'transparent' when they mean 'opaque'.