| | By Mick James
Nothing is more
gratifying to a columnist
than a bit of feedback,
and if things are getting
slack on that front
nothing works better than
being rude about people.
So when, a couple of
weeks ago, I wrote a
piece on “why consultants
talk rubbish”, I thought
I was guaranteed a
heaving postbag of the
disgusted from Tonbridge
Wells to Toronto.
So, I thought I’d
throw myself back in the
fray, inspired by an
unlikely ally, and also
direct readers to a
wonderful resource. A
happily mistyped URL led
me to the works of Tony
Proscio. Add this
bookmark -
http://www.comnetwork.org/
jargonmain.htm - to your
Favourites now, and make
sure you download and
read the PDFs. I
guarantee you will never
be able to use words like
“leverage” (the
consultant’s verbal Swiss
Army knife) “at scale” or
misuse words like
“parameters” again.
The interesting thing
about Proscio’s essays is
that they are aimed
neither at consultants
nor management, but the
area he consults to,
charitable foundations in
the USA (the essays were
commissioned as “a plea
for plain speaking” by
the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation, may blessings
fall upon it). You might | |
|
| | have thought the
charitable sector would
be relatively free from
the verbal Dutch Elm
disease that infects so
many of our institutions,
and would express
themselves in terse,
urgent prose: “We have to
do something to help
these poor kids before
they get into even more
trouble!” But apparently
even this hard-pressed
and worthy sector is
entirely capable of
constructing sentences
like: “Comprehensive
community building
naturally lends itself to
a return-on-investment
rationale that can be
modelled, drawing from
existing practice.”
As Proscio puts it,
“When any occupation’s
cognoscenti write to
one another, day after
year after decade, they
come to express
themselves, like feral
children, in unlovely
grunts and wheezes that
no one else can
understand.”
Proscio’s initial
essays into the field
drew a mixed response
from his audience. Many
were in sympathy with his
general thesis but made
the point that they were
in competition for cash
(always, mind you,
referred to as “funding”
or “resources”) with
other foundations, and
unless they larded their
submissions with magic
words like “empowerment”
and “synergy” they | |
|
| | wouldn’t be taken
seriously.
I suspect this is what
drives a lot of
consultants to the
lexicon of “leverage” and
all its unlovely cohorts.
Plain speaking can leave
you looking seriously
short of chips at the
poker table. You might
sell someone a pair of
shoes for their kids by
saying that they were
pretty tough and had
plenty of growing room,
but a complex computer
system needs to be robust
and scalable.
If all we have done is
create a sort of courtly
language in which to
transact our business
life, then this might all
be seen as a bit of
harmless fun. And indeed
Proscio’s first two
essays are quite light in
tone. But in the third
piece “When words fail”
he decided to go deeper
into the political
implications of the
misuse of language:
“People are drawn to
philanthropy...largely by
a clear-headed and
intelligent desire to
make the world better.
Yet the stilted
doubletalk gives a
different and far more
menacing impression: a
country-club bourgeoisie
whose every utterance is
intended more to impress
and intimidate than to
discuss, inform, or
persuade. If that false
image has been spreading
– and inviting periodic | |
|
| | waves of attack from
politicians and the media
– the blame for it lies
at least partly at the
doorstep of foundations.”
With a qualifying
sentence or two about
making shed loads of
money, you could easily
apply that thought to
consultancy.
In the US,
conservative commentators
have successfully created
this image of a “liberal
elite” lording it over
the plain folk of
America. Some of it gets
pretty nasty, some of it
is valid comment. What
Proscio has put his
finger on is that the
conservatives are winning
this argument precisely
because they are
expressing themselves in
blunt,
call-a-spade-a-spade
language, while their
opponents tie themselves
in knots.
Now, Proscio writes
from a country where the
divide between the
agendas of liberals and
conservatives has never
been wider. Over here, by
contrast, with David
Cameron and Tony Blair
heading the nominally
reactionary and
progressive wings of our
political establishment,
things have never been
more confused. And I
wouldn’t want to sign up
consultants to any
political agenda.
Consultancy may not be
about making the world a
better place, but it is | |
|
| | about making things
better in the limited
sphere in which it
operates. It rests on the
fundamental belief that
change is not only
possible but positive, in
a world where change is
increasingly being forced
upon us.
So I would argue that
consultancy is inherently
progressive at some
level. Some consultants
are clear-headed enough
to realise that their
competition is not just,
or even primarily, other
consultants but internal
forces of inertia,
reaction and vested
interests. These forces
will tend to dress up
their defensive arguments
in the language of blunt
common sense – if all
you’ve come equipped for
is some elegant verbal
jousting with fellow
MBAs, it’s very easy to
be routed by such an
approach.
The effects of
resistance to change
range from the
impoverishing (the loss
of markets and jobs to
China and India), to the
fatal (global warming).
It would be a shame to
lose the battle for the
want of the horseshoe
nail of a decent
vocabulary.
| |
|
Previous Page 