Frankenwords creating a communication monster for law firms

A new wave of corporate speak is creeping into law firms and other organisations – and it is confusing and annoying for employees and clients who value clarity of communication, writes Trish Carroll.

Showing your clients that you understand them by speaking or emulating their language can be problematic, especially if their language is wrapped in spin.

Here is some timeless advice that will help you avoid the language fads that so many sectors lead, follow and ultimately discard: use your own distinctive voice and follow Winston Churchill’s suggestion that “short words are best and the old words when short are best of all”. Last year, Dr Neil James, executive director of the Plain English Foundation, wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald about what he perceived to be the worst words of 2017, decrying ‘Frankenwords’ such as ‘joyments’ (an everyday moment that brings people joy) and ‘betterers’ (a person who makes something better) as the latest corporate crime against language. Once you’re aware of Frankenwords, or made-up agglomerations, you’ll see and hear them everywhere. Some of the standout examples I’ve heard uttered in law firms are:

• anticipointment (anticipation + disappointment);
• cashtration (the act of cutting off a person’s funds);
• chillax (chill + relax);
• frenemy (friend + enemy);
• greedership (greed + leadership); and
• winnomat (winner + diplomat).

Dr James is not a fan of corporate spin either. He cited in his article a United Airlines example; remember that poor passenger, a doctor, who was dragged bleeding from a plane by security after refusing to surrender his seat on an overbooked flight? When confronted with the fallout from the situation, the airline played down the incident, saying it was an “overbook situation” that led to “involuntary deboarding”. Nice try, United.

Lucy Kellaway, writing for the Financial Times last year, provided a good reminder of why maintaining a crisp, clear and jargon-free voice in your writing is an asset. She gave some remarkable examples of corporate obfuscation, with favourites of mine including:

• Uber’s admission to having “underinvested in the driver experience” resulting in “a reputational deficit”.
• EY sending a message after getting rid of a number of people that said “we look forward to strengthening our alumni network”.
• Accenture’s description of the changing nature of finding and keeping quality people, remarking that “with the rise of the multi-polar world, the task of finding and managing talent has become more complex, turbulent and contradictory”; and
• Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks, announcing that Starbucks Roasteries were “delivering an immersive, ultra-premium, coffee-forward experience”.

Even the names of functional areas of management, such as human resources, have undergone extraordinary name changes. HR has largely been replaced by the term People, Performance & Culture (PPC) and within PPC the area once known as recruitment is now more often called “talent acquisition”. I’ve noticed many law firms now have a PPC and within it are Chief Talent Officers, Talent Acquisition Managers and talent management teams. It’s an entirely new language.

Advertisements for Talent Acquisition Managers often include the word “agile” in front of the title; for example, “seeking an agile Talent Acquisition Manager”. This made me ponder the changing nature of the word “agile”.  On investigating this word’s reinvention I’ve found that it was an infrequently used word until this decade and now it’s become a word used to describe not just a business strategy but also a movement.

Manager of Agile Australia, Rachel Slattery, when speaking about the 2017 Agile Australia Conference, said: “The theme of the ninth conference is ‘learning and leading’”, which she goes on to explain “reflects the need for organisations to really drive change from the top. To always be open to learning new ways of working, encouraging a workplace that embraces continual learning and leads the organisation with this mindset.”  This all sounds sensible, although I am still not convinced of why it is agile.

Sounding less sensible was ANZ Bank CEO Shayne Elliott when he announced in May 2017 that ANZ would “blow up its hierarchy and adopt the scaled agile work practices used by leading digital companies such as Spotify and Google”.

In a piece published in bluenotes, a publication of ANZ’s newsroom, Anouk De Blieck from ANZ wrote: “Agility is becoming a new workplace currency. It’s about embracing change, being curious and approaching problems in a novel way. It’s about connecting empathy to gain insights, demonstrating resilience and turning ideas into reality. It’s about rapid iterating, failing fast and reflecting to get to better outcomes. It’s about making a deliberate choice on how you want to be engaged – are you going to be a spectator or will you be part of the play?” Righto.

I came across the website of someone helping ANZ with all this. His name is Chris Chan, Business Transformation, Enterprise Agility Coach & Social Architect, and he is “helping ANZ in the journey of transforming ANZ into an awesome place to work”.  His website provides insights into how that will happen. “The transformation will be emergent and informed by the knowledge of the experience and making decisions based on what is known as we progress through the transformation.” What do you think that means exactly? It sounds to me that they propose to see what they find and decide what to do from there.

I have every confidence the concepts underlying the agile movement are sound, but why do these examples make me feel queasy? It’s because the language is letting it down; it feels forced and fake when what’s needed is clear and forthright communication.  When your firm is communicating with staff and clients about your business strategy, your achievements or your value, it’s best to speak in your own distinctive and clear voice. Watching out for nonsense language in everyday situations is a good start. Here are some of the phrases and words that a quick survey among my clients found to be the most irritating and which are creeping far too regularly into everyday conversations and writing in law firms.

Kellaway concluded her article in the Financial Times by singling out this email from John Chambers, CEO of Cisco: “Team, we’ll wake the world up and move the planet a little closer to the future.” Gosh. Chambers has followed Churchill’s instructions, but it doesn’t make this message any easier to understand.

If you’re tempted to take your firm boldly where some of the examples cited here have come from, please don’t.  If clarity and sincerity is what you value, then say and write what you mean in the plainest, easiest to understand way possible. Your clients and your staff will thank you for it.

Trish Carroll is the principal of Galt Advisory, a firm focused on helping law firms devise and implement successful marketing and business development strategies. She can be contacted at trish@galtadvisory.com.au