No, you didn’t “reach out”, you CONTACTED them

[xrunner]

It's just that the less we have to say, and the "fancier" it needs to sound, so we can look smart and interesting while saying almost nothing.

In consideration of your statement, after a short time pondering all implications, I would have to assert and make known here, my complete agreement and endorsement of your claim.

[Cerebus]

He means "Me too." <- ex professional editor at work.

I once had a friend, a highly knowledgable barrister, who was the model of clarity when you sat down and chatted with him. We got him to write the legal column for the back pages of the magazine I was working on at the time. Despite it not being my section of the magazine, somehow muggins here ended up with the task of editing his column. I suspect that our chief subeditor fluttered her Spanish eyes at me (the rest of her was from Yorkshire) with a plea that she couldn't make head nor tail of it, and that he was my friend so it was my problem. Anyone who has encountered a Yorkshirewoman who has made up her mind, let alone one with a streak of Spanish temperament in her, will know why I quietly did as 'requested'. Never in my life have I had to pummel quite so many words that said nothing into something comprehensible while still trying to extract what he was actually trying to say.

There's something about putting words into writing that makes some people go crazy and say things that they never would if they were talking face to face with someone. Lawyers are one of the principal classes of culprits here, and for some reason so are junior admin staff. At least with lawyers they usually know what the words mean, but the number of emails I've had from minor functionaries who do things like use "confirm" ten times in an email without ever using it once to actually confirm something. When I encounter that particular misuse it seems to be being used in the hope that if you say something enough times together with the word "confirm" it will somehow magically have become true in the face and the teeth of the actual facts.

Obviously the worst offenders are the management types and the marketing types, but at least with them the interpretation or translation becomes easy - it almost always boils down to "I said nothing of substance" or "I know nothing".

[TimFox]

In 2027 (just five years from now), we can celebrate the useful neologism where the verb form of "contact" was added to the language, thanks to Americans.

Will we also be celebrating their equally useful neoarithmetisms?

If that ugly word become a neologism, and the new terms be equally useful, then another cause for celebration.

[eti]

All very interesting and all that, chaps, but it's still wrong. A tree is still a tree, no matter who looks at it and from what angle.

[bsfeechannel]

Now I am confused. Should I sing along "contact and take it"?

[bdunham7]

All very interesting and all that, chaps, but it's still wrong. A tree is still a tree, no matter who looks at it and from what angle.

Nah!  It's a 'single member forest'.  Or a 'houseplant', if you rearrange the typical construction of the meaning of the word.

[coppercone2]

careful with reaching because it can get you into trouble with HR and the law on a harassment claim

maybe the groping is more specific to sales I am not sure. I suggest you reach for your pockets sir

[tooki]

There's a lot of other things that annoy me much more in "modernspeak", such as "you are not wrong", "proactive", "problematic", "misspoke", "systemic", etc.

Some are normal terms, but their recent over use by grifters and weasels ruined many of these for me.

”You are not wrong” has a specific meaning, and that meaning is not “you’re right!” 

Not sure what you mean about the others; they’re perfectly normal words.

[tooki]

My cat is meowing at me constantly.

I believe he is reaching out for food.

I once had a cat who would come and paw at me for stuff. Or if I was sleeping, walk across my face to get my attention. I think those definitely count as “reaching out”!

[JPortici]

Now I am confused. Should I sing along "contact and take it"?

This is the song i was thinking about. thanks for reaching out to my subconcious

[DiTBho]

People are so very easily brainwashed, and even more easily impressed with themselves and how “clever” they sound. It simply had to have originated from these ghastly Americans. <sarcasm but also true>

bias? 

[DiTBho]

(I agree with Quora.
Good points, great article)

[Cerebus]

My cat is meowing at me constantly.

I believe he is reaching out for food.

I once had a cat who would come and paw at me for stuff. Or if I was sleeping, walk across my face to get my attention. I think those definitely count as “reaching out”!

No, that counts as "Giving instructions to the staff", the difference between the interrogative or a request and the imperative. If I don't notice madam in front of me waiting to give me instructions she will put her paw onto my knee to get my attention. If I am not paying her attention within 500 ms she extends her claws lightly into my knee.

[Bassman59]

It's just that the less we have to say, and the "fancier" it needs to sound, so we can look smart and interesting while saying almost nothing.

In consideration of your statement, after a short time pondering all implications, I would have to assert and make known here, my complete agreement and endorsement of your claim.

Hey, I just got spam email that said exactly that!

[Bassman59]

Obviously the worst offenders are the management types and the marketing types, but at least with them the interpretation or translation becomes easy - it almost always boils down to "I said nothing of substance" or "I know nothing".

The Bard said it ages ago: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Bassman59]

Now I am confused. Should I sing along "contact and take it"?

No, you should surrender to the dream police.

[Cerebus]

Obviously the worst offenders are the management types and the marketing types, but at least with them the interpretation or translation becomes easy - it almost always boils down to "I said nothing of substance" or "I know nothing".

The Bard said it ages ago: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Well, they often make me want to clutch a dagger. 

[SiliconWizard]

Well, they say that only 10%-20% of communication is verbal, the rest being non-verbal (like body language, the way you speak, and so on...)

Now, in those 10%-20% of verbal, how much "content" matters in terms of communication? Because I guess the "wording" is still verbal communication. If we extend the above a bit, maybe it's the same proportion - meaning that only 10%-20% of the verbal part of communication is actual content, the rest being the wording.

If so, that would be only 1% to 4% of actual content in communication, the rest being noise. Does that sound right?

[TimNJ]

I think the emergence and prevalence of corporate-speak must somehow be related to:

1. A self-consciousness/doubt that (perhaps) your cubicle computer job doesn't really contribute much to society (even if it really does!) Imposter syndrome? Needing to prove it to yourself? "I studied hard in school, barely had a childhood, went to the best college, and now I work this cubicle computer job. It was all totally worth it!.....right??"

2. The fear of being "found out" by  others and the need to prove to others that your cubicle office job is in fact a valuable contribution to society

I think the modern corporate job is pretty "unnatural" in the sense of human evolution/biology etc. I'm totally unqualified to talk about this (apart from being a human), but surely there is some psychological effect of taking a species whose work, for 99% of its history, was tangible and hands-on, and making them send emails all day. I dunno; I feel we aren't wired for it, and so perhaps we have to over-compensate to make us feel better about it.

I think people tend to speak in these weird roundabout ways when they are not comfortable with whomever they are talking to. To me, it indicates that you, in some way, have your guard up.

Pragmatically, I've found that when I speak as naturally as possible, through email or in a meeting, this encourages other people to speak naturally too. Another way is to speak about your own shortcomings/failures in an equally natural way. Obviously we all mess up...everyone knows this, but in a corporate setting, the tendency seems to be to save face. Letting people know that you are human too encourages them to let their guard down and talk to you normally.

Recently, I listened to a discussion about the difference between the corporate and blue-collar worlds, and found it very intriguing. (For those unfamiliar with the term "blue collar", it basically just means "trade work", like carpenters, electricians, factory workers, etc.) The observation was that opinions in the blue-collar culture tend to be very blunt and out-in-the-open. If someone wrongs you (or vice versa), there may be a heated exchange, swear words, non-PC language, etc... but by the next day, it's almost like nothing happened..On the contrary, in the corporate world, this kind of behavior is "not professional", HR gets involved, and yada yada...Personal conflicts between two people are not allowed to happen in a "natural" way, and you have people boiling up with animosity, ready to explode.

As a reminder, I have no psychology degree, but that's how I see it!

[tooki]

Totally agree!

!

1. A self-consciousness/doubt that (perhaps) your cubicle computer job doesn't really contribute much to society (even if it really does!) Imposter syndrome? Needing to prove it to yourself? "I studied hard in school, barely had a childhood, went to the best college, and now I work this cubicle computer job. It was all totally worth it!.....right??"

2. The fear of being "found out" by  others and the need to prove to others that your cubicle office job is in fact a valuable contribution to society

I think the modern corporate job is pretty "unnatural" in the sense of human evolution/biology etc. I'm totally unqualified to talk about this (apart from being a human), but surely there is some psychological effect of taking a species whose work, for 99% of its history, was tangible and hands-on, and making them send emails all day. I dunno; I feel we aren't wired for it, and so perhaps we have to over-compensate to make us feel better about it.

I think people tend to speak in these weird roundabout ways when they are not comfortable with whomever they are talking to. To me, it indicates that you, in some way, have your guard up.

My observation is that the use of artificially complex speech has a direct, inversely proportional relationship to the actual skill and intelligence of the speaker. Someone who actually knows their shit doesn’t feel the need to couch it in fluff.

[thm_w]

I take it you've never seen the movie?

[bsfeechannel]

No, you should surrender to the dream police.

What is funny about this rendition is that the vocalist announces that the song starts with the keyboards. When he realizes the song actually starts with the drums, he briefly looks at the drummer with a damn-I-always-forget-that-drummers-are-musicians-too attitude, then proceeds to greet the keyboardist.

I think the emergence and prevalence of corporate-speak must somehow be related to:

The reason why corporations restrict the usage of words or even expressions is that the relationship between companies is ALWAYS formal. No matter what position you hold, you are a representative of that company. So your talk has to conform to a standard. Of course the formality can be relaxed in many contexts, but that doesn't mean a permanent license.

[Cerebus]

No, you should surrender to the dream police.

What is funny about this rendition is that the vocalist announces that the song starts with the keyboards. When he realizes the song actually starts with the drums, he briefly looks at the drummer with a damn-I-always-forget-that-drummers-are-musicians-too attitude, then proceeds to greet the keyboardist.

Easy mistake. Anyone could make it. Drummers, well... 

I think the emergence and prevalence of corporate-speak must somehow be related to:

The reason why corporations restrict the usage of words or even expressions is that the relationship between companies is ALWAYS formal. No matter what position you hold, you are a representative of that company. So your talk has to conform to a standard. Of course the formality can be relaxed in many contexts, but that doesn't mean a permanent license.

It's not a, possibly necessary, formality that is being complained of. It is empty buzzword loaded speech that is essentially meaningless.

Become essential to our customers by providing differentiated products and services to help them achieve their aspirations.

That is the mission statement for a very well known company. Can you tell what, if anything, they make? Can you tell what, if anything, that they do? Can you tell who, if anybody, are their customers? Does that in fact communicate anything that isn't implicit in a company existing, or is it just hot air, dressed up in buzzwords like "differentiated" and "aspirations",  expelled for the sake of saying something that didn't need to be said?

[TimNJ]

No, you should surrender to the dream police.

What is funny about this rendition is that the vocalist announces that the song starts with the keyboards. When he realizes the song actually starts with the drums, he briefly looks at the drummer with a damn-I-always-forget-that-drummers-are-musicians-too attitude, then proceeds to greet the keyboardist.

I think the emergence and prevalence of corporate-speak must somehow be related to:

The reason why corporations restrict the usage of words or even expressions is that the relationship between companies is ALWAYS formal. No matter what position you hold, you are a representative of that company. So your talk has to conform to a standard. Of course the formality can be relaxed in many contexts, but that doesn't mean a permanent license.

I'm not necessarily talking about talking "formally" vs talking in "slang". My communication with other companies is generally always formal, and I agree that it should be this way (for a number of reasons). One reason is that slang/informal speak can be interpreted differently by different people, especially those you don't have a close relationship with. So, clear, formal communication always makes sense in this context. When speaking with people within your company, you can adjust your formality based on how well you know the person, in my opinion.

But, my point is the "corporate-speak" ≠ "formal language". Speaking nonsense does not really help anyone, and probably just makes things more confusing for everyone.

[tooki]

Yeah, the issue is that modern “corporate” tries to avoid sounding formal, so instead it’s this contorted “casual” register. Google “microspeak” for some deal doozies: Microsoft is famous for coining just weeeeeird corporate speak.

But nothing, and I mean NOTHING, beats the insanity of Sephora’s corporate vocabulary. It is, frankly, freakish. The salesclerks, oops sorry, “cast members” are under strict orders to use their doubletalk lingo. The most memorable bit is that one cannot give a coworker (even a subordinate) “criticism” or “feedback”. No, you have to call it a “gift”.

“Hey tooki, I have a gift for you! You totally borked that last sale…”