bureaucratic
“Implement a rating structure on employees.”
"Exceed expectations."
"Interactive evaluations."
There it is - the aesthetic beauty of the corporate mindset via wordplay. Beauty? How in the world is there beauty in that, Mr. This Side of the City, you ask? How is there possibly any beauty within the impersonal bounds of the corporate structure? Please, allow me to explain.
Creative mutation of the language to fit the purposes of a particular entity is generally something to be praised. It could comprise the written word, an artistic performance, or even a business. But it also begs the question on how to grasp it? How does one conform to the workplace vernacular? How do you understand precisely what's being said? For all of its inventive gloss and veneer, it is what comes between words and sentences, in the gaps and spaces, where the true logic (or the lack thereof) of corporate-speak finds its tangible meaning. Yes, there is an aesthetic beauty, but this does not necessarily make doublespeak imperative or vital. Though corporate-speak seems conceived to allay and avoid confusion, it basically constitutes a superfluous professionalism and oddly politically correct-oriented method of word-clutter. It only lends itself to perplexity - fleeting bureaucratic beauty.
"Enhance shareholder value through strategic diversification."
"Re-engineer the length and breadth of the operational paradigms."
"Leverage the expense structure."
With widespread outsourcing and downsizing, as well as an increased detachment between employer and employee (and between employee and employee), within the corporate framework, the good ol' days of "company care" are nearly defunct. Once upon a time, a person could join a company and find an almost familial compatibility. Despite the necessary business configuration and hierarchy, there resided a feeling of belonging - pride, even. As a young man, I heard about it - and even observed it - in older family members. But that's all mostly gone now, washed away by the deleterious spectres of Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, and Tyco. All are irrefutable examples of power and corruption run amok and the, ahem, "paradigm" of the corporation manifested as monster.
We have few actual "companies" anymore. Now, they are frequently conceived as an "enterprise entity." Employees are bodies with a functioning brain, motor skills, a diploma, and are usually disposable. There are still retirement packages, pensions, and often benefits and sick days. Without something to appease the proletariat, there would be rampant rebellion amid the rank and file. Work stoppages en masse under capitalism gone awry is the stuff of corporate nightmares.
But rebellion can be subtle. I for one can reluctantly acquiese and collect the check while I suppress the smirk and perform the tasks. But the spirit in me will never collapse and conform. It's too late for the corporate savior to rescue my defiant soul.
All I can say in reply to the latest corporate-speak jargon is, "No thanks. And have a pleasant day."
"Exceed expectations."
"Interactive evaluations."
There it is - the aesthetic beauty of the corporate mindset via wordplay. Beauty? How in the world is there beauty in that, Mr. This Side of the City, you ask? How is there possibly any beauty within the impersonal bounds of the corporate structure? Please, allow me to explain.
Creative mutation of the language to fit the purposes of a particular entity is generally something to be praised. It could comprise the written word, an artistic performance, or even a business. But it also begs the question on how to grasp it? How does one conform to the workplace vernacular? How do you understand precisely what's being said? For all of its inventive gloss and veneer, it is what comes between words and sentences, in the gaps and spaces, where the true logic (or the lack thereof) of corporate-speak finds its tangible meaning. Yes, there is an aesthetic beauty, but this does not necessarily make doublespeak imperative or vital. Though corporate-speak seems conceived to allay and avoid confusion, it basically constitutes a superfluous professionalism and oddly politically correct-oriented method of word-clutter. It only lends itself to perplexity - fleeting bureaucratic beauty.
"Enhance shareholder value through strategic diversification."
"Re-engineer the length and breadth of the operational paradigms."
"Leverage the expense structure."
With widespread outsourcing and downsizing, as well as an increased detachment between employer and employee (and between employee and employee), within the corporate framework, the good ol' days of "company care" are nearly defunct. Once upon a time, a person could join a company and find an almost familial compatibility. Despite the necessary business configuration and hierarchy, there resided a feeling of belonging - pride, even. As a young man, I heard about it - and even observed it - in older family members. But that's all mostly gone now, washed away by the deleterious spectres of Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, and Tyco. All are irrefutable examples of power and corruption run amok and the, ahem, "paradigm" of the corporation manifested as monster.
We have few actual "companies" anymore. Now, they are frequently conceived as an "enterprise entity." Employees are bodies with a functioning brain, motor skills, a diploma, and are usually disposable. There are still retirement packages, pensions, and often benefits and sick days. Without something to appease the proletariat, there would be rampant rebellion amid the rank and file. Work stoppages en masse under capitalism gone awry is the stuff of corporate nightmares.
But rebellion can be subtle. I for one can reluctantly acquiese and collect the check while I suppress the smirk and perform the tasks. But the spirit in me will never collapse and conform. It's too late for the corporate savior to rescue my defiant soul.
All I can say in reply to the latest corporate-speak jargon is, "No thanks. And have a pleasant day."

