Today, I looked at the cover of one of the dozens of trade magazines I receive each month to read (industry disguised because the industry is unimportant for the point) the headline:
"CHANGE MANAGEMENT
[members of industry category] try to navigate a changing of the guard, as well as a sea change in operating tactics and business paradigms"
These are folks at the very heart of all business in North America. Their industry had a record year in every category they measure, including revenue, despite rising fuel costs. Five of the major organizations within the category have new CEOs in the past five years.
The industry, itself, was the very first to introduce an industry wide method of automatically identifying and recording the activity and location of all mobile equipment, so it really does change and adapt to its economic climate.
This is an industry I have followed for more than 40 years, but continually frustrates me with its talent for "obfuscation" (using high-sounding words to describe simple activities and thus befuddle the ground level employees who have to carry out the activities.)
THE PROBLEM WITH HIGH-FLOWN LANGUAGE:
I might have expected a sentence like the one above buried somewhere in a report, but not in a cover page headline. When folks make information about change management inaccessible to the rank and file of their organizations by using language difficult for most of them to understand, it is akin to giving work instructions in college-level English to employees who are illiterate in English. The net result is frustration for managers and employees alike. Even worse is the impact on customers who may receive nonconforming goods or services because employees misunderstand instructions.
MEA CULPA (my fault)
I recognize my own guilt when it comes to using language difficult to understand and so may be more sensitive to the problem than many. Because I have been my own worst enemy when trying to communicate, I know first hand the poor results when folks don't get the whole message because they don't understand the words.
Part of the reason I campaign against the use of obscure acronyms is precisely because they are so open to communication failure.
THE GOAL FOR QUALITY FOLK:
Somehow, our Quality industry has to bring our language and message into the mainstream if we want to be as efficient as possible in serving our organizations. We have to tread a fine line between using a secret code known only to a select few of our members and "dumbing down" the message so much we alienate our audience by speaking to them in "baby talk." (Did ums want a pretty product? Yes, um do!)
Got any suggestions?
"CHANGE MANAGEMENT
[members of industry category] try to navigate a changing of the guard, as well as a sea change in operating tactics and business paradigms"
These are folks at the very heart of all business in North America. Their industry had a record year in every category they measure, including revenue, despite rising fuel costs. Five of the major organizations within the category have new CEOs in the past five years.
The industry, itself, was the very first to introduce an industry wide method of automatically identifying and recording the activity and location of all mobile equipment, so it really does change and adapt to its economic climate.
This is an industry I have followed for more than 40 years, but continually frustrates me with its talent for "obfuscation" (using high-sounding words to describe simple activities and thus befuddle the ground level employees who have to carry out the activities.)
THE PROBLEM WITH HIGH-FLOWN LANGUAGE:
I might have expected a sentence like the one above buried somewhere in a report, but not in a cover page headline. When folks make information about change management inaccessible to the rank and file of their organizations by using language difficult for most of them to understand, it is akin to giving work instructions in college-level English to employees who are illiterate in English. The net result is frustration for managers and employees alike. Even worse is the impact on customers who may receive nonconforming goods or services because employees misunderstand instructions.
MEA CULPA (my fault)
I recognize my own guilt when it comes to using language difficult to understand and so may be more sensitive to the problem than many. Because I have been my own worst enemy when trying to communicate, I know first hand the poor results when folks don't get the whole message because they don't understand the words.
Part of the reason I campaign against the use of obscure acronyms is precisely because they are so open to communication failure.
THE GOAL FOR QUALITY FOLK:
Somehow, our Quality industry has to bring our language and message into the mainstream if we want to be as efficient as possible in serving our organizations. We have to tread a fine line between using a secret code known only to a select few of our members and "dumbing down" the message so much we alienate our audience by speaking to them in "baby talk." (Did ums want a pretty product? Yes, um do!)
Got any suggestions?