By Naked CIO, 4 August 2008 10:42
COMMENT
To improve our credibility we could all start by rooting out the waffle, the weasel words and the technical jargon. And a little more honesty wouldn't go amiss either, says the Naked CIO.
As a CIO I probably have as many pet peeves as the next person. But one thing particularly rankles with me. It's people casually bandying about words and phrases to conceal complex ideas.
Exclusive column: The Naked CIO
See what this CIO really thinksÂ…
The Naked CIO: Poisoned BlackBerrys
The Naked CIO: Enemies of the state
The Naked CIO: Service level disagreements
The Naked CIO: What makes a great IT leader?
The Naked CIO: Business misintelligence
The practice is debilitating in a world where assumptions create massive problems.
Take, for example, the use of the word 'anomaly' in an IT context. Anomaly means we have an issue no one understands, cannot identify and are powerless to resolve should it happen again.
I also hate the use of 'the business' to mean an opposing force that only exists to complicate the world of IT.
But my current favourite is 'business alignment', which usually means nothing because IT staff employ it as a placeholder to signify a gap between IT and business strategy - instead of trying to close it.
It seems the IT community increasingly uses words that give it plausible deniability in almost any situation. A department that once was the epitome of straight-talking no longer seems capable of giving a simple answer.
This calculated stance is greatly damaging credibility, respect and collaboration. When I listen to my own employees and colleagues, I see how we have moved from being technically elitist to plain clichéd.
We use words like specification, requirements, compliance, process, methodology and standards as ways to confuse others and distance ourselves from the responsibilities we have to the organisation.
All these words are fine when properly applied. But when they relate to effective and efficient services, they become excuses, stall tactics, containment or ways of deflecting attention from our failure to do our jobs properly.
We have become political and yet we are not qualified to play business politics in an increasingly frugal and cost-conscious business environment.
Why are we scared to tell the real story? Why do we have to confuse and confound to buffer us from criticism rather than improve the way we do our jobs?
Organisations deserve straight-talking IT people telling them not necessarily what they want to hear but what they need to know.
In my team I have outlawed people saying 'but'. As in, "I understand what you are saying butÂ…" or "That is a great idea butÂ…". It has no value and only harms attempts to build consensus.
We need to keep reducing the technical jargon that is so divisive and replace it with meaningful communication.
To gain credibility we also need to be more honest and work as part of a comprehensive strategy that produces tangible and transparent results.
What do you think? Join the debate and post your reader comments on this story by clicking on the link below.
Comments
There are 15 comments. Join the discussion
1. Captain Sensible
The truth will set you free ... to find another job.
With weasely words you can live comfortably with all the other weasels.
2. anonymous
Sadly telling the truth is not an option. No CEO will tolerate being told his idea is at best suspect, no HR Director will tolerate being told his pay policy is divisive. IN fact you really cannot tell anyone the truth if you want to survive which is why we have always hidden behind technical jargon. And it is not a new phenomenon - way back in the mid 60s when I started in IT we used to use strange phrases deliberately to inform ourselves whilst protecting ourselves. Keep your head down, CIO - or join the scrap heap of those with more experience than you can shake a fist at (and probably have) but who find it impossible in this climate to get a job!
3. John Rutter
The closing statement, although a valid point, appears to be the sort of weasely consultancy-type speak you wouldn't want to hear:
"... work as part of a comprehensive strategy that produces tangible and transparent results"
Sounds like you want to apply 'Enterprise Architecture', but leave out the buzz-words that justify it.
4. Simon Allen
"It's people casually bandying about words and phrases to conceal complex ideas."
Actually - I've always seen it as the exact opposite.
People use complex words and phrases to conceal simple ideas. I presume that it makes them feel 'big' and 'smart'.
It's a nice idea to be able to speak plainly but you have a Titanic problem on the table, where a large portion of the interface co-ordination communication is further compounded, when taking into account the preliminary qualification limit.
Easy!
5. Dan Perrin
Many of these words, the ones you have identified as being misused, also have the power of explaining well known structures and situations in simple phrases. For example, when we say 'the business' we all know what is meant by that. How else do you say what you want to say without writing a whole new paragraph explaining what you are wanting to explain all because you have decided to remove a list of words from your vocabulary?
There are certain words and phrases which have become useful and often used in the IT business world – we all know what they are and what they mean and those who don’t can quickly learn because the words are so self descriptive.
6. anonymous
I agree with the sentiments of being straight forward and clear. However, what alternatives do you use for 'business alignment' etc.
One senior IT Manager I work with has a directive that says "we never say no, we always offer alternatives".... an alternative to your '..., but...' .
So, dont just leave us with the problem, what are the alternative solutions.....
7. anonymous
Great article that unfortunately ends with an ultimately cliched paragraph:
"To gain credibility we also need to be more honest and work as part of a comprehensive strategy that produces tangible and transparent results."
As a writer for an IT marketing agency I've seen that last phrase in particular a thousand times. It would be right at home in any vendor's C-level-focused product brochures.
8. Radical Meldrew
Dear Mr Naked, I consider my but to be of extreme value in a discussion.
It is used to quickly bring the focus back on reality, usually by pointing out the overlooked or glossed over features that don't quite align with the 'way forward - new strategy' or whatever. I do however agree that we should drop the hype that only modern techies can understand. It's pure elitism which boosts their egos into some technical nirvana not inhabited by normal folk. Rest assured that I will be sticking my but in for years to come ... well, all the time that my input is still required.
9. Dick Vinegar
The naked CIO uses a weasel word himself, "Issue" as in "Anomaly means we have an issue no one understands, cannot identify and are powerless to resolve should it happen again." He means "problem" or "difficulty". "Issue" covers up the truth.
When people talk about "technical and organisational issues", they really mean "the software is buggy, and the CIO is an "****hole". Why not say so?
10. anonymous
Frankly it's a redundant truism to say that careless language and unnecessary jargon are undesirable.
I've hated the phrase "the business" since my first day as a trainee, because I thought I had joined my company to be part of the business, not some spotty little sibling that the big kids are embarrassed to be seen with.
Even so, some bits of jargon have their use, but only when everyone shares the same meaning. For example, is there a two word alternative for "project stakeholder"? I've never been able to reduce "person with an interest in the outcome or ability to influence the success of a project" to two words; interested party doesn't quite cut it.
But the part of this article that us foot troops are most likely to disagree with is the idea that we are scared to tell the real story. Not scared, but fed up. Fed up with being told that we are making it deliberately complicated. Fed up with our words being distorted by those that don't understand our jobs. Fed up with our senior managers not having the courage to fight our corner after those distortions.
It takes two to tango. If colleagues in other functions were prepared to treat IT with respect, long suffering troops wouldn't be driven to evasive tactics. We obfuscate because non-IT colleagues are getting worse in their assumptions about what is and isn't a simple problem in IT. "I've knocked something up in Access, how hard could it be to make it work for 1000 concurrent users in a distributed environment with no performance issues?" People don't challenge how hard it is to construct a major building or manufacture a car. That's because those things are tangible. They can see that it's difficult. IT is almost invisible, so otherwise sensible people somehow equate invisible to simple "because I can imagine how to do it in my head".
Until we find a way to address the almost wilful lack of trust and understanding of IT in non-IT colleagues, this situation will worsen.
11. antevans
Much formal business communication is political rhetoric, designed to obfuscate and intimidate - either because the cost of all real decisions is unpalatable, and must be hidden, or because the originators are in a power struggle that can never be mentioned directly. Unfortunately, the resulting pompous nonsense infects the organisation from the top down. Most people lack the confidence to express themselves simply, even when they can, so they copy someone else. Few are the organisations that resist. The best examples are from the plain English movement in the UK public sector.
12. anonymous
Get the rid of the bloody Ford Mondeo.
13. David Martin
The problem I see is that upper management dont understand the complexity of a network (ie all the various components, like PCs, servers, routers, switches, firewalls, etc and the various interactions), dont want to know and just "want it fixed" without costing an arm and a leg... the next problem is having IT managers that dont understand IT...so if they dont understand, then of course they are going to use generic terms like "business alignment". Lots of people seem to think if you're a manager you can "manage" anything. The biggest mistake IMHO...if you dont understand IT you certainly cant manage it effectively, so how can you be honest and talk honestly about it?!
14. anonymous
To 'hide' complex issues or systems when discussing with non-tech people my (overused) favourite word is 'Magic Box'. This usually works very well.
I would also disagree that the word 'but' should be outlawed, as it has many valid uses. One example would be "blah, blah, blah IT Consultant mumbo jumbo, *BUT* it won't work and we shouldn't do it"
15. Weasel Words
You’re not the only one Naked CIO who wants to see the demise of weasel words.
Our website is ‘for people who have silently wept into a crumpled copy of their company's mission statement, for teachers who want to work in classrooms and not customer service points, and for all those who have been underpinned by an innovative, value adding, creative, sustainable, diverse and optimised framework.’