Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by gzread » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #295

Animats wrote: post #236

Corporate jargon is a relatively recent development in business history.[1] It wasn't seen much until the 1950s and 1960s, when "organization development" and management consulting became an industry. Peter Drucker seems to have popularized it in the 1980s. 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 n…

You all will hate me for pointing this out, but it strongly correlates with women entering the executive ranks of corporate America in the 80s. Complain about new age corporate jargon and see who joins in and agrees with you; more men than women. Complaining about it is masculine coded, just like pretending to not know the difference between red and maroon. And who are the most enthusiastic workplace champions of the…

I'm not seeing it. Could just be that men are more likely to complain about this sort of thing.

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

#342

Post by salawat » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

wiseowise wrote: post #330

zmgsabst wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use HTTPS because it makes my packets “more retarded” than the HTTP version of those packets to anybody without the session key to decrypt the “retarded nonsense”. That’s literally the whole point of encryption: Your message becomes unintelligible to those who aren’t able to decode the content.

Except encryption isn’t made to protect enlightened few from stupid masses and their “poor” understanding. If you have something secret to say to other managers then just send an email to a mailing list. Assuming that only you and your clique understand the message directed at specific people is an insult to people around you.

It's called elite maintenance of the social class hierarchy. They can't help it, it's all they know. The thing that bugs me is it should be on us working stiffs to divest them of these habits. You can only lead a horse to water, however...

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

#343

Post by salawat » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 6:56 PM UTC

alexjplant wrote: post #264

collingreen wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always avoid synergy and say "bigger than the sum of its parts" or "peanut butter and jelly". Simple language with less baggage.

...except for those of us who think that PB&J is a culinary abomination in which case the metaphor disintegrates ;-D (apologies to my mother for having to make me PB-only sandwiches growing up) I do wonder whether adding chips or bacon to counteract the cloying one-dimensional sweetness of the other ingredients would make me a fan though... chunky natural PB, blackberry jelly, hickory-smoked bacon on ciabatta? Hipste…

Wait, wait, wait. You were fine with the savory of peanut butter, texture, mouthfeel and crunch of the chunky variety of PB... But the jelly gave you fits for adding a shot of sweet and a slight hint of gelatinousness? You have uh... an interesting and idiosyncratic taste response, to say the least. The bacon would probably help, mind, though it's the culinary equivalent of "no shit, Sherlock". It'd run a spectrum from adding chewyness, to a bit of crunch depending on how it's prepared. It'd increase umami response, and add some protein content, but not really change the overall profile. If by chips you mean potato and not fries, you'll add some salty notes, crunch, and maybe a slight touch of after sweet as your saliva breaks down the complex starches. Still same problem with your jelly response. If you meant fries, salty notes, puffy mouthfeel/texture ranging from soft all the way through to crunchy-soft-crunchy depending on prep. If baked air fried, less oil contribution to umami. If deep fried, you have the frying medium notes added to the overall product. It'd be an experiment. I just think you maybe need to vary your jelly ratio. In proportion to your PB since you seem to have an exaggerated preference for umami.

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

#344

Post by johnisgood » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

gzread wrote: post #309

johnisgood wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think so, with a term such as "culture building"?

Culture exists and can be built. Building it intentionally is basically impossible, but also an obvious thing to try to do if you don't know that.

To me culture building does not imply creating culture from scratch intentionally (as you cannot intentionally force it), but rather influencing or guiding that natural process thoughtfully to encourage "positive" values and behaviors to encourage "positive" values and behaviors within a group.

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

#345

Post by coldtea » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 8:36 PM UTC

>Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals.

Wasn't it common knowledge that only cynics and idiots like those things?

That's basically 99% of what Dilbert and The Office are about.

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

#346

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 07, 2026, 8:39 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #284

ignoramous wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also summarised in https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of...

this reads like an AI clickbait. it does make Rao's original article a little easier to digest but it was already pretty tight through the first 3-4 parts.

[deleted]

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

#347

Post by nineteen999 » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 1:06 AM UTC

salawat wrote: post #343

alexjplant wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...except for those of us who think that PB&J is a culinary abomination in which case the metaphor disintegrates ;-D (apologies to my mother for having to make me PB-only sandwiches growing up) I do wonder whether adding chips or bacon to counteract the cloying one-dimensional sweetness of the other ingredients would make me a fan though... chunky natural PB, blackberry jelly, hickory-smoked bacon on ciabatta? Hipste…

Wait, wait, wait. You were fine with the savory of peanut butter, texture, mouthfeel and crunch of the chunky variety of PB... But the jelly gave you fits for adding a shot of sweet and a slight hint of gelatinousness? You have uh... an interesting and idiosyncratic taste response, to say the least. The bacon would probably help, mind, though it's the culinary equivalent of "no shit, Sherlock". It'd run a spectrum fr…

To complicate things, this is unintelligble to non-US people who generally call what you call "jell-o" jelly, and what you call "jelly" we call jam.

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

#348

Post by fallingfrog » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 3:11 PM UTC

Yeah at my last job at a larger organization they would occasionally get us all in the big auditorium and start showering us with this sort of language. I would excuse myself to use the restroom then go back to my desk and get some work done. Peace and quiet! Never got called out on it, they don't need me sitting there rolling my eyes and grimacing through the whole thing anyway.

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

#349

Post by rkomorn » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

nineteen999 wrote: post #347

salawat wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, wait, wait. You were fine with the savory of peanut butter, texture, mouthfeel and crunch of the chunky variety of PB... But the jelly gave you fits for adding a shot of sweet and a slight hint of gelatinousness? You have uh... an interesting and idiosyncratic taste response, to say the least. The bacon would probably help, mind, though it's the culinary equivalent of "no shit, Sherlock". It'd run a spectrum fr…

To complicate things, this is unintelligble to non-US people who generally call what you call "jell-o" jelly, and what you call "jelly" we call jam.

But... US folks call jam jam too. Jam and jelly aren't the same.

At least, in France we'd also have the difference between configure and gelée.

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

#350

Post by jjk166 » Sun, Mar 08, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #316

jjk166 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they're not semantically rich. People who speak the code aren't doing it to more efficiently communicate, such that a long and complicated message can be expressed quickly. They are taking a short simple message, stripping away all the details, then padding it such that it becomes more verbose and vapid. This makes the real message harder to decipher for the uninitiated, it removes information even for those who…

In exactly the sense my HTTPS packets are semantically emptier than my HTTP packets.

Yes, taking 16 kb to transmit what could have been transmitted in 1 kb with the express purpose of making communication more difficult. That is what semantically emptier means.