The Termination is Proximity-based

“Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

— George Orwell’s paraphrase

This just in… about half the people who use the term “paradigm shift” can actually define it. What’s more, nearly all users of this phrase have stopped doing so, citing it now as pass�.

Why? Choosy jargon utilizers cognitize that when it comes to buzzwords like “paradigm shift,” things can change, big time.

Ugly sounding and often difficult to understand, buzzwords are meaningless, fad terms that muddle language. Like the Internet, they too are derived from academic communication, and begin to spoil as soon as businessmen use them.

When is one born? After someone combines an abstract noun (such as “data”) with an inert verb (such as “to mine”), forming a vague term (“data mining”) that substitutes for what’s really meant (“digging deep into a statistical analysis for meaning”). A buzzword also may emerge when one person takes a perfectly unassuming word like “tsunami” and relentlessly misapplies it until it’s ruined for good (e.g., “We are witnessing a tsunami of three-pointers from Reggie Miller tonight!”); finally, it can form when millions of otherwise reasonably intelligent people begin using “impact” as a verb.

And that’s just it — these mind-numbing terms creep into the vernacular like uninvited guests. You hardly notice them on the crowded verandah, and then — bang — they’re mixing daiquiris in your kitchen. Pretentiousness plus insecurity plus plain ignorance are the key factors behind the fact that you can no longer simply ask your peers to “anticipate” or “think”; instead, you must empower a team. Nowadays if an organization wants a supplier to cut costs on a job, it asks the vendor to “value engineer” the project. From policy to dress code, the final results of anything a corporation enacts in 1997 must be referred to as the “net-net.” (“Cut to the chase and give me the net-net on that.”)

Years before the invention of political correctness (let alone Ebonics), Orwell was preaching that “political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” By definition, wrote Orwell in 1946, political and business communication had to consist of “sheer cloudy vagueness.” U.S. leaders heeded Orwell’s warning against verbal ambiguity, then returned to suburbia to start the Baby Boom.

Certainly there was reason to obscure meaning during the eras of nationalism and world war. But ever since then, many chilling Orwellian terms have taken wing in corporate America, concocted to make bad news seem merely unpleasant. Current irony-laden business examples include “rightsizing,” meaning that a corporation, like water, finds its own level (the “level” in question refers to the dwindling number of employees it is willing to bankroll); and “outsourcing,” jargon for adding freelancers or vendors, rather than staff. (For more business-buzzword semantics, see humorist Michael Moore’s bestseller Downsize This.)

Let’s talk nutjob, black helicopter theory for a moment. Before flight was invented, why wasn’t there a single extraterrestrial sighting in this country? Now, get a load of this little bombshell: How come, before computers and high tech hit the marketplace, a “core competency” was just a “skill”? Coincidence or conspiracy? Only the Unabomer knows, and he’s not talking.

While we’re loathing technology, have you noticed lately that “meta-” has become a new, all-purpose technobuzzword prefix (a metaprefix)? For example, if you’re discussing only the Texas results of a national study — The Texas data, we’ll call it — but your supervisor is more interested in the findings of say, all 50 states, he would ask you for the “metadata.” Meta: nobody understands it, and everybody’s using it. And now there’s something called “metrics,” an unwelcome new substitute word for “measurements.” Example sentence, “Proacting on behalf of the metateam, Andrew developed proper metrics that enabled us to calculate our efficiency.” Word to your Motha, Andrew.

Still, whether spawned by massive job cuts, or by job-secure technicians butchering the King’s English, buzzwords tend to have short lifespans. This is good. Sadly, new ones rush in, replacing those that have been surplused. Thus, today’s “core strategy technologies” become tomorrow’s “strategic technologies core.” Think of this as a Trend-based Buzzword MetaCycle.

Which leads us back (globally rotates us?) to “paradigm shift.” The rise and fall of this soon-to-be remaindered phrase calls to mind a factor all fad terms co-share. It is that critical moment when a previously benign word or phrase metastasizes into a full-fledged buzzword. This happens shortly after you’ve first witnessed its use. “Transitioning” is complete after the hot new term is used by someone who — you’re certain — has only a vague idea what it means, and is likely just repeating something he’s heard. This person could be your boss; it could also be Al Gore.

Either way, there’s one final, scenario-generated question here (a real no-brainer), that anyone would ask: By utilizing such a term, would the buzzword enabler in question be thinking out of the box; parroting his co-sources; or visioning that he has positively impacted on quality?

There is a strong likelihood that the correct response would be three-pronged.

The next time you encounter a buzzword in the mouth of someone you believe has no clue what it means, why not stop and innocently ask for an explanation? Then, sit back and enjoy.

This article appears in May 9 • 1997 and May 9 • 1997 (Cover).