Stakeholders required for best practice gobbledygook

acotrel says:

11:01pm | 09/08/12

Stick to playing computer games and stay out of the workforce.  ‘The system runs on bullshit’ most of the time.  This is an exzception.

Smugly literate says:

02:20pm | 09/08/12

ad not add

Dan The Man says:

08:14pm | 09/08/12

HAHA! Gold!

*shoots fingerpistols and winks*

acotrel says:

10:56pm | 09/08/12

That sort of cynical comment helps nobody.  If you are wondering why Australian industrial practice is grossly inferior to that of the Germans, and we cannot compete on quality , look no further - your attitude is the reason.

acotrel says:

10:13am | 09/08/12

There is often only one ‘right’ way to do a job, and your workers know what it is.  You should not have to micromanage established procedures.

acotrel says:

10:10am | 09/08/12

It could come down to that, but it would make the whole exercise pointless.  What it takes is a a manager who is not afraid of making themself redundant by writing sufficient guidelines to enable their workers to self manage.  If the system is standards based , it might even result in legal compliance.

P says:

03:11pm | 10/08/12

@acotrel

That seems a touch ad hominem to me.

As a long time reader of The Punch (before, you know, I decided that people were wrong - on the Internet, and I needed to fix it), I’ve always enjoyed your lone stands against the Liberal haters.

Having said that, I understand the point you’re trying to make - education should be defined more broadly than the University.

But what do you think of the thrust of my earlier post - which, essentially, is that such language is unhelpful and needlessly complex?

I take Iansand’s and AdamC’s point that it’s reinforced and required in certain types of corportae culture. But in terms of the English used, it doesn’t have to be that way, and it’s stupidly, horribly, awkwardly, and badly written tripe.

Also, I’m 27. So, relatively, you may be right or wrong about the young part.

acotrel says:

10:50pm | 09/08/12

@P
You must be very young and naive.  Your education begins when you leave universtity. Even then most of the genuine amongst us do further studies to enhance and reinforce our experience, and become competent.

Gordon says:

12:32pm | 09/08/12

You are quite right. The question of whether this type of job is worth doing (they are paying the salary so they can make that call), is a totally different question from the language used, which is simply specialised terms used in a somewhat abstract job.  It’s mockable, but then what isn’t if you work at it?

AdamC says:

11:23am | 09/08/12

@iansand, I agree with you. What is reffered to as jargon is usually a specialised language used by professionals in a certain field to more accurately or easily convey technical information. It is only where jargon terms are used outside of the specific communities for whom they are meaningful that problems arise.

The issue is not jargon itself but people who are unwilling or unable to break-down complex ideas for a wide audience.

P says:

09:37am | 09/08/12

Iansand, I take your point - the language is embedded in one type of corporate culture, navigating it is the first obstacle.

That doesn’t make it any less awful.

Acotrel, you have to be joking.

I know that sounds rude - but your comment is absurd, and reflects everything wrong with many peoples’ idea of education.

I get that some people can understand the ad, and that’s fine. It’s obviously a type of language common to that area, and one can work through it; and, as Iansand suggests, are required to work through it.

But to suggest that someone who can’t read it needs an ‘education’ is disgusting. Sure, my university education helped me understand the words. It also made me feel ill. Such pathetic, weasel language is the sign of someone who needs to further their own education.

Plain, clear, strong English is by far the most difficult to write well. Check out John Milton, or Kurt Vonnegut.

The language in the above ad is what most of my (university) students think is required to succeed. This is incorrect. To analyse and express complex ideas, often technical language is needed. This is true.

But English, in all its diverse glory, is capable of doing so in a manner which is clear and precise. Such language in the article quoted from the ad is weak, unclear, and needlessly verbose.

If somebody can find the entire ad, I’d be quite willing to re-write it all here to demonstrate what I mean.

Thank you Emma for an amazing article.

iansand says:

09:37am | 09/08/12

That’s what jargon mostly is - plain English to convey a specialised meaning for people familiar with the jargon.  Except for we lawyers, who use latin tags that we all understand.

acotrel says:

08:57am | 09/08/12

I don’t beieve that what was put up is jargon., and I don’t think there was any intent to exclude the ignorant.  To me it is plain English used about a technical subject.  If you cannot understand what was said, you need to get an education, - and that applies to most fields in industry.  The trouble comes when middle managers and CEOs have closed minds and dismiss this stuff out of hand as being just another ‘flavour of the month’. It is for real.

PW says:

06:54pm | 09/08/12

It’s a safe bet that the CEO of RailCorp cannot drive a train nor is he qualified to do so.

However, the train crewing managers to whom train drivers directly report certainly can.

Tubesteak says:

01:27pm | 09/08/12

Macca
I don’t think the RMS is responsible for public transport. That’s Cityrail or Sydneybuses in which case I would expect the head of each to know what goes on at the coalface from having done it themselves.

Head of RMS had better know something about traffic management and planning. Not just another cushy seat-warmer that knows management-speak and metrics.

AdamC says:

11:06am | 09/08/12

@Macca, I agree that the leadership component of a manager’s role requires only non-technical skills and expertise. However, where managers act as an escalation point for decisions that cannot be made by frontline staff, they clearly need some technical skills. Or, at the very least, some technical credibility.

AdamC says:

11:05am | 09/08/12

@Macca, I agree that the leadership component of a manager’s role requires only non-technical skills and expertise. However, were managers act as an escalation point for decisions that cannot be made by frontline staff, they clearly need some technical skills. Or, at the very least, some technical credibility.

Macca says:

10:34am | 09/08/12

@Tubesteak,
“My general rule of thumb is that if a manager cannot perform the role of their subordinates then they do not deserve to be their manager.”

Can’t say I agree with that at all, mostly because, the skillset of a manager is completely different to that of a technical expert. On that logic, the head of the RMS would be need to be capable of driving each variety of Bus, Train and Ferry in operation in the City of Sydney just to be able to do his job.

Managers should understand what their people do, and what results in good performance, but they shouldn’t be required to emulate those skills. They’re required to perform different duties and their skills should match those duties.

acotrel says:

09:48am | 09/08/12

@Tubesteak
’ If you are going to manage me then you need to know more than me or I don’t need someone above me telling me what to do or how to do it. ‘

I don’t care what my supervisor knows or does not know as long as the guidelines and goals are defined, and I am allowed to self manage. If someone wants to totally direct my actions, that is fine - however they have to live with me and maintain the status quo, and never expect initiative or creativity.

Phillip says:

09:38am | 09/08/12

Well said! Best company I ever worked in did not have all these parasite people. Line managers had to take 100% accountability for their people. Staff functions such as personnel.advertising,marketing were outsourced.
Managers could get the best available consultant advice and input but they had to take accountability if their implemented decidsions were bad etc.
When I joined another large company I was amazed at their costly and ineffective organisation structure .HR ruled supreme. They were also about to go off a cliff. On one famous day - ‘bloody Thursday’‘- we got rid of just about every staff function with HR being the first to go with all their claptrap. The organisation structure was streamlined and our change management agent was simple - this is your job, here is what we expect from you,this is the training and support you willl be getting - adapt or get out! The result is one of the largest blue chip companies in Australia - from disaster to overwhelming success with an invigorated team of people who are confident in their abilities and have a clear idea of their key performance criteria.

Tubesteak says:

09:04am | 09/08/12

Macca
My general rule of thumb is that if a manager cannot perform the role of their subordinates then they do not deserve to be their manager.

I’ve seen a number of people parachuted into an organisation who had no idea what was done and were reliant on their subordinates for how to do things. I’m the type of person that will actively undermine said manager to get them fired because I have no time or respect for those people, either. If you are going to manage me then you need to know more than me or I don’t need someone above me telling me what to do or how to do it.

acotrel says:

08:49am | 09/08/12

@Macca
If your management system is well documented and maintained and you use it as a training manual and empower your staff, the job is easy.  Please don’t complain when y our problems are caused by your own laziness and basic insecurities.

Macca says:

08:26am | 09/08/12

Tubesteak, probably right to a fair degree. If Managers had the time and capability to independently manage all the risks regarding the health / safety and performance of their people, we’d have no need for the oxygen thiefs known as HR and OHS professionals.

Chris L says:

08:37am | 09/08/12

The ad didn’t have the required programmatic specificity Danger Mouse

Mahhrat says:

11:00am | 09/08/12

@Tatty, I used to have a squishy cheese from that presentation!  I don’t know where it went, but I miss it so.

Tatty_Anne says:

09:08am | 09/08/12

They could have worded the ad “someone who’s read Who Moved My Cheese? and understood it”.

Mahhrat says:

08:31am | 09/08/12

To me it reads like someone who is to come and and manage the amalgamation of the new corporation, which will probably involve being the face of that part of the organisation that sheds 1000 of those 7000 jobs.

I’m only 37 and very junior though, so I might be off.

Inky says:

08:16am | 09/08/12

I can sorta get where it’s going. Doesn’t make it any less wanky though.

M says:

07:52am | 09/08/12

I was wondering If i was the only one who understood all the managerese speak.

acotrel says:

10:43pm | 09/08/12

HR sections are only about hire and fire and training, not continual improvement of systems, policies and procedures.  Personnel people don’t have the required expertise, nor do many MBAs.  Many of those cannot achieve real productivity gains, but simply act as toe cutters to change the ratio of profit to wages bill, and thus cause a downwards spiral through loss of technical expertise.

Switch says:

02:24pm | 09/08/12

You are kidding, right?

Ten years ago there were plenty of IT roles being advertised, and approximately zero “Change Manager” roles. Today, the Change Manager rules the job advertisements. Change Management is very in-vogue amongst those who do very little indeed.

Just another example of HR job justification.