Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 354 posts

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#221

Post by hyperman1 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

There is also the signalling when a new, truly meaningless fragment pops up. The bigwig says it first, then his direct reports, then their underlings, etc.

So by using such a phrase, underlings signal both how close they are to bigwigs by knowing such a phrase first, and also demonstrate a vote for alignement, by quoting some phrases more and others less. Bigwigs raise status of underlings by repeating and expressing interest in their new phrases.

These phrases come and go in waves. Underlings laughing with them basically signal they are not worthy of attention in the political melee.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#223

Post by Muromec »

contubernio wrote: post #200
jvanderbot wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example elaborated: You _want_ most ICs to ignore a negative message that doesn't involve them, and you _want_ to give middle / lower managers the discretion to address an ICs "nonsynergistic" contributions on their own time. It's a signal not a prescription. This allows a public person to make a public statement and set direction without prescribing actions so lower management and ICs can do their thing. Upper m…

It would be a hell of a lot more functional to simply say directly what you want and mean. This sort of management is dysfunctional even in it's premises.

Saying exactly what you mean is generating the paper trail and accountability, which is a liability.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#224

Post by Esophagus4 »

ta988 wrote: post #99
Esophagus4 wrote: post #98

There does exist some purpose for corp-speak: it is a shared language for people in disparate parts of a large organization to communicate with. It is a tool, mostly for managers. Managers use it with peers because their job is coordination and communication. Managers shouldn’t talk to their reports in corp-speak, but think of it like a shared protocol for all messages in the corporate message bus.

But how much of that is real as in has measurable positive impact vs random decision making.

That sounds like a problem with the people producing and consuming the messages, not a problem with the protocol itself :)

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#225

Post by fhd2 »

alexjplant wrote: post #218
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

Synergy has a real meaning: 1+1=3. A cigar and a whiskey. Chocolate and peanut butter. Hall and Oates. Et cetera. Unfortunately it's one of those terms like "DevOps" or "jam band" or "martini" whose true meaning has been sullied by people trying to sound cooler than they are. On the rare occasions I've used it sincerely in meetings I've always caveated it with some variation of "the real meaning, not the BS one." Thi…

That's the right move. If a word changes its colloquial meaning, better drop it and find a new one. Happens all the time. From stuff like "agile" in a software development context (pretty meaningless at this point, can mean anything from the original definition to the systematic micro management it got to be commonly associated with), to previously neutral words that became offensive (because they were commonly used as such).

No individual holds power over connotations. Language just evolves.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#226

Post by dsr_ »

Muromec wrote: post #223
contubernio wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a hell of a lot more functional to simply say directly what you want and mean. This sort of management is dysfunctional even in it's premises.

Saying exactly what you mean is generating the paper trail and accountability, which is a liability.

In a sane system, it would not be a liability.

QED.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#228

Post by johnisgood »

alexjplant wrote: post #218
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

It's surprising to me that people don't consider these coded language. Sure, the junior manager might use them vaguely to mimic, but IMHO, when vague language comes up at decision tables, it's usually coding something more precise in a sort of plausible deniability. A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time. A senior director…

Synergy has a real meaning: 1+1=3. A cigar and a whiskey. Chocolate and peanut butter. Hall and Oates. Et cetera. Unfortunately it's one of those terms like "DevOps" or "jam band" or "martini" whose true meaning has been sullied by people trying to sound cooler than they are. On the rare occasions I've used it sincerely in meetings I've always caveated it with some variation of "the real meaning, not the BS one." Thi…

Why would you drop it altogether? Medications and/or supplements can have synergistic effects, for example. Synergy is actually a term that is formally defined as "Effect(A + B) > Effect(A) + Effect(B)".

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#229

Post by jjkaczor »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #122
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it >a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. This is the (cynical version of) the framing I tend to hold about corpor…

Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it This also holds true for competent non-board members. I have interacted with C-level executives at fortune 100 companies, as well as smaller businesses. It is almost…

Haven't there also been many studies that show high-level executives also have a high number of "sociopaths" in their ranks?

Sociopaths can code-switch instantly - I wonder how much of this is training, versus emulating others, versus a fundamental difference in brain operations...

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#230

Post by atroon »

fhd2 wrote: post #225
alexjplant wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synergy has a real meaning: 1+1=3. A cigar and a whiskey. Chocolate and peanut butter. Hall and Oates. Et cetera. Unfortunately it's one of those terms like "DevOps" or "jam band" or "martini" whose true meaning has been sullied by people trying to sound cooler than they are. On the rare occasions I've used it sincerely in meetings I've always caveated it with some variation of "the real meaning, not the BS one." Thi…

That's the right move. If a word changes its colloquial meaning, better drop it and find a new one. Happens all the time. From stuff like "agile" in a software development context (pretty meaningless at this point, can mean anything from the original definition to the systematic micro management it got to be commonly associated with), to previously neutral words that became offensive (because they were commonly used…

> No individual holds power over connotations. Language just evolves.

Okay, but I still reserve the right to be pissed off at teenagers using 'out of pocket' when they mean 'off the wall' or 'out of bounds'.

Post reply on HN