Gobbledygook or Newspeak in Modern Workplaces

From time to time I write about the modern workplace; the well will never run dry when it comes to finding ideas to write about when it comes to such workplaces. I am especially interested in public sector workplaces, since they seem to embody (or aim to embody by design) the worst business philosophies and ideas that crawl out from under the slimy rocks where they’ve sprouted. Modern workplaces in Norway and elsewhere often adopt such philosophies and ideas uncritically and put them into operation without much discussion or rational consideration. I’ve written about them before, e.g. New Public Management, which is (fortunately for us) on its way out after its decade of tyranny. Ask most employees if they’ve been comfortable in their workplaces that uncritically adopted this philosophy, and their answers will be a chorus of No’s. 

The uncritical adoption of bad business philosophies into modern public sector workplaces goes hand in hand with the language of gobbledygook to support and defend them. If company leaders don’t want their employees to know what it is they are being subjected to, then gobbledygook is the language they use. Let’s call it Newspeak for modern workplaces (with apologies to George Orwell). It can be defined as a language that makes no sense whatsoever, either to its users or to its unfortunate listeners. Its aim is to create a smokescreen so that employees become confused or left in the dark about what is really going on. If you have ever been the recipient of emails that make no sense whatsoever, if you’ve asked a question and gotten a ‘non-answer’ that passes for an answer, then you have experienced gobbledygook. If you attempt to make sense of the enormous bureaucratic system around you, e.g. how to deal with the billing department, you will be met with a wall of people, all of whom are cc-ing each other in the myriad of emails sent back and forth to answer one tiny question—how do I bill so-and-so for the service performed for them. One tiny question is ‘non-answered’ by at least six or more people, none of whom can or will take responsibility for providing a substantive answer. This is cowardice by design, inbuilt into a system that is itself designed to dilute out responsibility so that no one can be taken for any wrongdoing that could arise down the road. How would anyone be able to track the countless email paths, conversations, etc. that are attached to one miniscule billing situation?

In this vein, it was interesting to read the remarks of a Norwegian leader (of a public sector workplace that deals out money to researchers) concerning his organization’s philosophy, translated here from Norwegian:

When the sectoral principle so strongly influences Norwegian research funding, it is all the more important that XXX has a real opportunity to create synergies of funds given with different logics, then we can create win-win situations where we can deliver both on goal A and Goal B for the same money.

For God’s sake, what does this mean? And it’s not the translation; it was just as difficult to understand the meaning in Norwegian. This is how we are ‘talked to’ on a daily basis, from leader’s commentaries to emails that makes no sense or that provide no answers whatsoever. This is what we face at every turn. Meaningless pronouncements with bloated language that create a world of nonsense. Nonsense—literally, non-sense. Lewis Carroll would be proud (the author of Alice in Wonderland for those of you who wonder, whose Alice fell down the rabbit hole into a world that made no sense). It would be alarming if it wasn’t comical. It is no longer comical in my opinion. This is how many public sector workplaces operate on a daily basis. I pity those employees who prize speaking clearly and getting the job done as their goals. It is nearly impossible to cut through the jungle of gobbledygook on the way toward those goals. 

Clearspeak

It happened again—I was reading the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten and flipping through the Culture section, when I came to the book review section. I came across a review of a new book by an (American) author. The nationality of the author doesn’t really matter for this discussion; what is important was that this was his third book, that his first book had been an amazing debut, and that it had sold very well. It had also been well-received critically. The small headline that introduced the actual review provided the following message (translated more or less literally from Norwegian): ‘only the mountains are the same as in the first book; nothing else achieves the heights that were achieved in the first novel’. Clear enough message, I thought—I expected to find a negative tone throughout the review. But no, quite the opposite. The reviewer used his column to praise the book, and ended his review by saying the following: ‘it is almost unthinkable that (the author) would be able to achieve the heights that he did with his debut novel, but with his new book he has shown that he didn’t just have one good book in him. This book is undoubtedly one of the year’s most important American books’. Why did this review irritate me, when it was in fact well-written and positive to the author? Because these types of reviews or newspaper articles are not uncommon these days. Because the introductory headline and the review itself were at odds with each other. Because the headline creates the anticipation of a negative review, when in fact it was not negative at all.

This is how I would have written the introductory headline: ‘despite the fact that the third novel does not live up to the standards set by the debut novel, the author’s third book is very good and will be one of the year’s most important books’. Nothing more and nothing less. You then know what you have to deal with when you read the review. Your expectations of praise and some criticism will be met. You will get a clear message of what the reviewer meant about the book.

I look for Clearspeak in most conversations and in most of what I read and listen to in the media these days. Unfortunately, I find that Clearspeak is in short supply. What is Clearspeak, you wonder. Clearspeak is the opposite of Obscurespeak, and even of Newspeak (a la George Orwell). It is the ability to express one’s thoughts and meanings clearly, so that your listeners and readers understand you. It is the ability to use words and vocabulary in an honest and direct (not necessarily politically-correct) way, again so that your listeners and readers understand you. It is not about being politically-correct or cowardly or any of those things. Clearspeak says—'I have an opinion or a specific meaning about something and I feel comfortable with expressing it clearly. I want you to know what I think'. Obscurespeak says—'I have an opinion or a specific meaning about something but I feel uncomfortable with expressing it clearly, so I will introduce a certain amount of confusion so that readers and listeners cannot ‘attack’ me for my opinions and meanings afterward. I’m not sure I really want you to know what I think. I am afraid'. Obscurespeak is obfuscation. It is also Safespeak—it protects the writer or speaker from being taken down or attacked, because your readers and listeners are too busy trying to figure out what it was you meant by what you wrote or said. Obscurespeak is the new language of huge bureaucracies as well, because if the average ordinary person actually started to understand what is written in the rules, regulations, tax laws, import laws, etc. he or she might actually start to ask some clear and direct questions that politicians wouldn’t want or be able to answer. Understanding how society and the government work might lead to grass-root revolutions and to an overthrow of politicians and bureaucrats who worship Obscurespeak and even Newspeak. Perhaps that day is coming and that is what they’re afraid of.