“In time, I learned that this was the beauty of management jargon, the unbreakable code. Anyone could write it and, with a little practice, speak it, and just to write it and speak the stuff was to prove you were professional: so professional that every underling who could not crack the code must imitate you. The miracle was that once you knew a dozen or so “key” or “core” terms, once you were “focused” on them, thought was scarcely necessary. In fact writing like this was best done, and perhaps could only be done, without thinking at all.”
This is a quote from the preface to Australian Don Watson's book Death sentences: how clichés, weasel words, and management-speak are strangling public language (2005, Viking Canada, Toronto).
Death sentences is recommended reading for anyone attempting to understand the current state of labour relations on our campus. This is particularly true if you are one of the almost two thousand five hundred people who have downloaded the HR Strategic Plan 2008-2012 from our blog (linked through the Academics’ Critique article below if you still need to find this). You could very well find Watson’s book to be somewhat restorative or healing after working your way through the HR strategic plan.
Does the U of S meet the international standards for management-speak established in Watson’s book? Here are three examples suggesting that we are doing very well
Jargon Example #1 - Performance reviews (aka performance assessment; performance-based pay)
This was one of the sticking points leading to the CUPE strike when the union membership resisted the attempt by administration negotiators to link performance assessment to standard salary increments for support staff. President Mackinnon reinforced the administration’s negotiating position at a November 28 meeting with Department Heads, Deans and senior ASPA managers. At that meeting, President Mackinnon made reference to the current head of Human Resources (Barb Daigle) as being a lightning rod for issues at the heart of the strike. However, President Mackinnon made it very clear to those assembled that he personally, the entire university senior management and the Board of Governors strongly supported the administration’s negotiating stance on performance reviews tied to salary increments for CUPE 1975 employees.
On the surface, how could one argue against the desirability of this practice? Surely, a person’s job performance should be monitored and pay withheld if they do not measure up?
Early in the strike, a couple of business groups in Saskatoon weighed in to support the administration’s bargaining stance Download file. [As an aside, the business groups were mistaken in the date shown on their news release (among other things); the release was issued November 9 2007. ]
Yet, the folly of the administration’s proposal was clear to all when an iconic commentary from a senior U of S management professor was eventually published in a local newspaper Download file. CUPE also exposed some interesting links between the Saskatoon business groups and events occurring at the negotiating table Download file.
Jargon Example #2 - Interest-based bargaining
This phrase and its associated management-speak are trotted out by the administration whenever they need to negotiate with a union. Here are a couple excerpts from the December 8, 2005 U of S HR Newsletter Download file, phrases that are often repeated in subsequent newsletters:
"The University is committed to taking an interest-based problem solving approach to bargaining. We value our relationships with all our unions."
"We are focused on solving tough problems with respectful negotiating processes."
How could anyone not want to use an interest-based approach to collective bargaining? To be respectful?
I have been on the union side of a negotiating table where I listened to the jargon of interest-based bargaining flow from the mouth of a senior administrator. A few bargaining sessions later, that very same administrator was standing, pounding the table, and hurling invectives at we poor union negotiators. The negotiations failed. A huge issue that was in the interests of the union and administration to solve remains unsolved.
Jargon Example #3 - High performance culture
This phrase or variations of it are embedded throughout documents originating from the administration. It is a goal in the HRD mission statement Download file and professional development program Download file. If you need more convincing, here’s an excerpt from another HRD Newsletter Download file that was included under the heading "Building a Culture of High Performance":
"Vice President (Finance and Resources), Richard Florizone defines culture as “the sum of all the ways we interact with each other, the norms and standards we set across the organization, the way we work together, and the processes we follow. It is an environment where performance expectations are clearly defined in terms of outcomes and behaviours, where people listen and respect each other and are committed to articulating clear requests, and follow through on those requests. It includes aligning rewards with achieving results. It’s also an environment where we use data to make decisions and changes as necessary to support the direction of the organization."
How could anyone at a university not want to exhibit a high level of performance?
Students want to get A’s in their courses. Professors want to publish books and meet the tests of peer-review in grant applications or academic journals. Teachers want to be outstanding in the classroom.
In fact, the phrase “high performance” has a loaded meaning and describes a very specific set of management practices sometimes enacted by manufacturing companies. A detailed critique of the high performance management paradigm that has been recently adopted by administration is being prepared by members of the Concerned Academic Community and will be posted to the blog in the near future. In the meantime, be wary when you hear this phrase. It does not mean A’s, successful grants or scholarly publications.
Other examples of international management-speak abound at our institution. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Read the book by Watson, almost anything coming from administration and draw your own conclusions. We are teachers and scholars after all, and should be able to figure this out with a little work and critical analysis. HRD Newsletters and its website are good places to start your comparison. Before you do that, however, let me inoculate you with a bit of Watson’s antidote for corporate-speak:
"Parrots never learn the language but are smart enough to know, like people involved in marketing, that one or two catchphrases will satisfy most people" (Watson, 2005, p. 5)
