Enid Blyton, Finance and use of the Fibonacci code.

Posted: July 7, 2015 in Uncategorized

There’s a piece written in a newspaper saying that the great George Orwell would hate HR and the language it uses.

He might well have done.  There was a tenuous link to the reason why: he liked no bullshit, straight talking.  HR – in the article – was considered THE most guilty of all for spin, jargon and horrid terms.  Pointless, petty bureaucrats.  Hopping around looking for inequality to tackle and a policy to write.

That whole language misuse is debatable IMHO.  I’ve worked with marketers – utter tripe talked there at times.  I’ve worked in IT – the most outrageous bollocks spouted as project speak.  I’ve been in boardrooms: fantastic bastardisation of terminology.  Quite why the journo chose to have SUCH a go at HR is beyond me and I’m not here to defend bureaucrats, shoddy professionals or plastic leaders from said profession I happen to be a part of.  I see it, hear it and even use some of it.  Sorry human race.

However, there’s a lot better stuff to be re-tweeting and posting and I’m not even going to take it on.  I’m using as shite a title as the journo did as click bait or sensationalist claptrap to lure people into this blog.

Now, what’s NOT sensationalist is a conversation I had with 10 other interesting and thoughtful people off the back of someone else’s recommendation to meet up.

It was about human beings and this thing we call work, and these places we work run as organisations.

It was a joyous 2 hours of no-ego, gently facilitated discussion which on the outside looked like a kumbya gathering but what turned out to be 10 other people who gave a shit about something beyond themselves.

People who were puzzled at why human beings in organisations find little but financial recompense in their work.  Who are dismayed at the dissent and downright sadness many people experience in their work.  That organisations – by definition – diminish the human being and that leadership is STILL way off for what’s needed in the 21st century.

Language DID come up but not the trite kicking given to some laughable jargon – the downright spirit-depressing tomes used in organisations.  Used in politicking, angst-ridden corporations many people have to survive in to make a decent living.  How it is still the language of mechanisation, of keeping people down and of power dynamics long held by unworthy individuals.

See I don’t know about you, but I’d rather a journalist with valuable column space would write about that kind of language abuse. Else don’t commit fingertips to keyboard until there’s something of real value to take on.

George Orwell would probably turn around and say “nice try, but leave me out of such pettiness.  Accepting that all pettiness is equal but some more petty than others of course”.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s