Ever notice how politicians can talk for hours without saying anything? It's a critical skill of managing the audience through what is known as "managerial jargon". CEOs and all sorts of executives speak the same language, which is as removed from English as Chinese.
The purpose of managerial jargon is to survive in public scrutiny for as long as possible. If a manager can minimize legal liability by saying the least controversial statement, he has already adapted to the modern market where a single wrong word can be taken out of context to end a career or harm the company. Vagueness is another key part of managerial speak, since vaguely defined ideas lead to more agreement on the part of the listener.
The feelgood tone of the manager's statement manipulates the listener's emotions. Because any factual statement can be disputed, the manager wants to reveal the least amount of facts, let alone controversial ones. It is an adaptation to the environment like any other. There are all sorts of weasel words used in managerial jargon. In fact, they can be sorted into categories.
A manager is often asked about why some decision was made or why something happened. When the reason isn't known or isn't explainable without revealing damning facts, the manager will use circular logic. A description of the event is used as a cause of the event.
Our production is low because it isn't high. The salaries we didn't pay out weren't paid because we didn't pay salaries out.
Hope is a feelgood but ultimately toothless answer to any kind of dire situation. Instead of solving a crisis, the manager simply has to instill hope and soothe the audience. Anyone opposing the manager then appears needlessly harsh and a doomsayer. Hoping for something implies factual knowledge but does not confirm it.
We hope the situation improves. We would like to have things improve soon. We are confident everything will be all right.
Phrases without any substance end the discussion straight away without promising anything. Anyone who wants to discuss things past the empty phrases can be easily dismissed.
The situation is better than it seems. We're doing everything we can. We're putting in our best effort into this matter. We're discussing the matters with experts. Our internal numbers look good.
Observing something is the least controversial action. Instead of doing something, the manager simply observes. An action is implied but not stated or promised.
We are watching the situation. We are keeping an eye on things. Things are on our radar. We're looking forward to see how things shape out. We are listening to you. We are paying attention. We have our finger on the pulse of the public.
Instead of answering the stated question, the manager subtly rephrases it and answers that one instead. In this way, incisive questions are dulled and avoided without causing discomfort.
You asked how many tons of food we produce a year; I believe food production is very important.
The manager answers a question with a question to derail the discussion and vaguely outline what isn't being said. Beware of questions, especially ones that shed blame and responsibility.
Would any other solution really be better? Is that really a problem?
The manager negates a highly specific case, though that wasn't what was asked. The average listener jumps to the conclusion and thinks the original answer was addressed. Beware of highly specific answers.
You asked about the rumor that salaries will be lowered by 9%. We will not lower salaries by 9%.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, opinions are not binding and do not guarantee any action or even a firm stance on anything. A manager can manipulate the audience with his opinion without being factually wrong or legally liable.
I think we are doing great. I believe our customers will be happy with our choices.
Trends are more important than single occurrences. If a manager wants to dismiss criticism, he will cling on to an anecdote of a single occurrence instead of discussing a trend. Unless the sample size is large enough and randomly acquired from the population, presume the anecdote is not trustworthy.
Yesterday, we paid out a salary to our workers. I saw John eating lunch, therefore there is food.
Accepting blame for anything is tantamount to suicide in the managerial world. However, spreading unspecified blame over an arbitrarily large amount of people conveys a vague notion of things just happening on their own, rather than the manager who made the call being at fault.
The quarantine measures aren't working because the population is still going out and socializing, despite our best efforts. The players were the one who discovered this imbalanced strategy.
When blame is assigned, there should be a reason why the person in question was chosen. Stating the reason reveals the underlying managerial decisions and mindset. Therefore, it has to be obscured. By invoking "company policy", the manager can hide the real reason why something was done, the knowing of which could potentially harm the company or the manager. In those cases, the reason is always illegal.
It is our company policy to fire anyone who doesn't attend mandatory rape prevention, black superiority and white privilege-checking seminars. There is no law mandating it, it's our company policy.
Ideally, a person in a position of power would speak facts whenever possible to empower the listener. By getting the truth, you become free. The subordinates then know what's going on and can make their own decisions. Managerial jargon obfuscates the truth and makes the subordinates fully dependent on the manager. This applies to politicians as well as