231–240 of 354 posts
I found this title amusing, since I'm actually synergizing paradigms, i.e. trying to find the commonalities between different models of human behavior. (There are dozens of us!)
Wouldn't that be synthesising paradigms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I have also met some that seemingly calculate their tone and cadence to try to manipulate the person(s)/people(s) they're talking to. This is a trait of a psychopath. Not surprisingly, one finds a lot of them in the executive ranks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's CYA jargon, like layoffs, workforce rationalizations, letting someone go, challenging fiscal environment. And there's blatant bullshit, like paradigm shift, culture building, and so on. Two categories of execspeak.
I think those are just degree of difference in "context required to understand", not different categories.
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.
Sure, direct, cold, concrete, public data is "best" in the objective sense, but people's feelings and pride matter, and any attempt to wave that away is just naive.
Then came PowerPoint.
Before that it was more of a political and religious style of communication. In those areas, speeches and texts designed to be popular but not commit to much dominate. Religious texts are notorious for their ambiguity.
The point seems to be to express authority without taking responsibility.
[1] https://www.rivier.edu/academics/blog-posts/circling-back-on...
If anyone wants a chuckle, I vibe-coded an endless supply of "synergizing paradigm" terms as a slideshow for a fake corporation. It's fun to put on in the background on a tv somewhere to see if anyone notices. https://brightpath-global-solutions.com/ Edit: repo link: https://github.com/chronick/global-business-solutions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you mean just regular constructor parameters, dependency injection in the sense of a runtime dependency injection framework is the one thing I try to avoid like the plague.
That is called a "DI Container", and usually manages the objects and order of instantiation etc. Dependency injection simply means to take objects as parameters, and not instantiate them themselves (which causes "Inversion of Control" also commonly mentioned when talking about DI). DI Containers just makes the managing of objects easier. Avoiding it like a plague seems excessive, did you have a bad experience with th…
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…
Conversely, when someone talks about "decolonizing" a curriculum or "centering" marginalized voices, to me it's a clear statement about who gets to define meaning and whose history counts, but to my Boomer uncle it's incoherent, if not an outright attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the test these weren't coded language, they were randomly generated phrases. The finding is that the people who don't know how to decipher the code are easily impressed by it and have poor analytical skills.
from TFA: > “Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Arts and Sciences. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.” I'…
The Big Short by Michael Lewis, page 101.