• deliverable – n., the tangible result of work performed.

When someone agrees to do something (i.e., they “take on an action item“), there may be a corresponding expectation that they will deliver a tangible result to a manager or a team.  What they deliver is called a “deliverable.”

Deliverables can be big or small.  For Boeing, a 747 is a deliverable.  If you promised your boss you’d get your TPS report to her by Wednesday, then the TPS report is a deliverable.    If your action item was to bring coffee to the next meeting, then coffee is a deliverable.

This piece of corporate jargon is even used in legal agreements, as in: “Company agrees to deliver it’s deliverables on or before the deliverable delivery date.”

As you may recall from an earlier post, the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid,” is a piece of corporate jargon used to indicate company loyalty.

Sometimes it’s not enough to just say you drink the Kool-Aid.  If you really want to show devotion to a company, you have to go farther.  Not as far as Jonestown, thankfully.   For example, take a look at the photo below, sent to me by a good friend (let’s call her “Ruby”).

Pictured here with two cube-farm co-workers, Ruby is the one metaphorically drinking the metaphorical Kool-Aid:

*

*photo posted with permission of those pictured

• action item – n., a specific task that needs to be accomplished; usually used in the context of a corporate meeting.

When someone takes “ownership” of an action item, this indicates responsibility to accomplish the specified task.  Here’s a usage example: “At the last meeting, we decided that someone from the legal department needed to review our proposal.  Who owned the action item to reach out to them?”

This piece of corporate jargon provides a more passive (and polite?) way of pointing the finger at someone and saying: “you must do this.”  For example:  “Can you take on that action item to complete the TPS Report?  Does Tuesday give you enough time?  Great.”

Popular corporate jargon usually offers something a little something more than what is offered by standard English.  Often, that “little something more” is vulgarity (see, e.g.,  “bio break” and “drink the kool-aid“).  Today’s corporate jargon entry offer’s another good example.

• one throat to choke – when a customer has one company to blame when things go wrong.

To understand the meaning, imagine this call to a customer support line:

COMPANY A: “We’re a software company.  What you have is a hardware problem.  You need to get help from Company B.”

And inevitably, this is what happens when you call Company B:

COMPANY B: “I don’t know why those dolts over at Company A told you to call us.  Your problem has nothing to do with our hardware.  You need to call back Company A and get help from them.”

The customer gets bounced back and forth between these two companies without ever getting the  problem resolved.  At some point, the customer may develop an urge to strangle someone, but the trouble is that they don’t know whom to strangle.

What every customer needs is “one throat to choke.”

With one company to blame, the customer also has only one company to praise when things go right.  So while the phrases “one back to pat,” “one hand to shake,” or even “one cheek to kiss” convey exactly the same point, I’ve never heard them used.  “One throat to choke,” with its vulgar mental image of assault or attempted murder, rules the day.

• to think outside the box – v., to attempt to solve a difficult or persistent problem with a creative or non-obvious solution.

The implication of this corporate jargon is that preconceived expectations, tradition, and past practice have muddied our ability to think creatively about a problem. When you encourage someone to “think outside the box,” you’re stressing the need to escape the trap of looking at the issue in these traditional ways.

As with other pieces of corporate jargon, the phrase “to think outside the box” is sometimes misused. At best, it’s a useful phrase encouraging creativity. At worst, it has become into a destructive “inside the box” tradition all of its own. To deal with these different uses, I’ve divided this post into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

The Good:

The optimistic message is that if we can escape these constraints (thinking “inside the box”), we can approach the problem in a fresh way and through innovation, creativity, and intelligence, we can solve a problem that has not yet been solved. Nice image, no? After all, who wants to be in a box? Or a cubicle for that matter?

The Bad:

The point of thinking outside the box isn’t to ignore past constraints, but to try to think around them. There’s a difference. In the hands of the mentally lazy, this corporate jargon becomes shorthand for “ignore what happened before,” or “don’t think about the potential consequences.”

Sometimes there’s a very good reason why something hasn’t been done before (e.g., adding aerosolized asbestos to a can of hairspray to reduce flammability).  Sure, fresh and innovative thinking often comes from those who are ignorant of the past and therefore not seduced by it.  Out of the mouths of babes. However, when making the ultimate decision, ignorance of the past is rarely a valuable trait.  It’s why you don’t see many 7-year-olds in senior management positions, Tom Hanks in “Big” notwithstanding.

The Ugly:

Even worse than when it’s used to cheerlead a team into ignorance, is when this piece of corporate jargon becomes a mantle for corporate bullies who rely on it’s rhetorical power to shut down any criticism of their proposals. The corporate bully throws it as an accusation at his or her critics. “Disagree with me? You’re thinking inside the box!”

• to boil the ocean – v., to try to solve too many problems at once, thereby making success less likely; to waste good effort.

Boiling a pot of water is easy, but even Al Gore would agree that you can’t boil the ocean. Failure is guaranteed, and all effort expended in an attempt to do so would be wasted. You’d have no impact whatsoever.

This piece of corporate jargon is similar to the last one. Here’s the basic difference: While the jargon “to drink from the fire hose” refers to an attempt to absorb too much information, “to boil the ocean” refers to an attempt to accomplish too large a task.

When used in its natural environment (a corporate meeting), sometimes this piece of corporate jargon is misused merely as a means of attempting to deflect responsibility for a difficult task. As in this completely fictional usage example:

EMPLOYEE A: “Our new car, the Pinto, may have a teeny tiny flaw. It allegedly explodes in a rear impact. Any ideas to address this?”

EMPLOYEE B: “Well, we could move the gas tank. Or give the car a rear bumper.”

EMPLOYEE A: “Yes, that might solve the problem, er — the alleged problem, but it would require some redesign work. Let’s not boil the ocean here.”

EMPLOYEE B: “Boil the ocean? I thought that’s why we were meeting, to redesign the car so that it doesn’t explode when hit from behind.”

EMPLOYEE A: “Allegedly explode when hit from behind.”

EMPLOYEE B: “Yes, of course, allegedly.”

EMPLOYEE A: “You’re not thinking outside the box. How about a ‘buy a Pinto, get a free asbestos suit’ promotion?”

• to drink from the fire hose – v., to attempt to learn too much information in a short period of time.

Instead of taking a dainty sip from a water fountain, step up to the fire hose and drink directly from it (without spilling a drop). It’s an impossible task — you’re going to end up soaking wet and looking like a fool. That’s the inspiration for the meaning of the corporate jargon “to drink from the fire hose.” It means that you’re taking on too much, and you’re setting yourself up for failure.

Usage example: “Hi Bill, I saw the slides you are planning to present at the all-hands. Looks like you’re planning to show 75 slides in a 45 minute presentation. That’s too much — you’re asking all of us to drink from the fire hose. Why don’t you scale back your presentation to about 10 slides, and limit yourself to the elevator pitch.”

• to take offline – n., to discuss something later; to set aside a topic of conversation in a until a later time, when a more appropriate group of people can address the topic..

Today’s corporate jargon is one of my favorites. When used correctly, it can help keep a business meeting on track, and it can help make sure issues get discussed in appropriate settings by appropriate decisionmakers. For a usage example, imagine this conversation taking place in a large staff meeting:

BOSS: “As you know, we’re going to be releasing the company’s new product line on January 10.”

EMPLOYEE: “Boss, I’ve already scheduled vacation that week because my pet parrot is having beak replacement surgery. Should I change my plans?”

BOSS: “Thanks for letting me know about your vacation plans, but let’s take that issue offline.”

The Boss is using “to take offline” to mean that he or she wants to discuss this issue further, but in a different setting. The Boss is not indicating that the subject is off-limits — there’s plenty of other good coroprate jargon for that. Instead, the point is to pospone the discussion to a different setting. The staff meeting is the wrong forum.

Sometimes, the issue could validly be discussed in the forum, but in the interest of covering a broad area of discussion, this piece of corporate jargon can be used to set aside the discussion to a smaller, more targeted group of people. For example:

BOSS: “Welcome to the meeting of Acme Enterprises Employee Parking Lot Planning and Construction Committee. Today we’re going to discuss construction of the new parking lot on the East side of the building. Let’s start by talking about what color paint we’re going to use in painting the lines in the parking lot.”

EMPLOYEE: “I think we might need more handicapped parking spots in this new parking lot.”

BOSS: “Good point. Why don’t you and the other members of the Handicapped Spot Subcommittee take that issue offline and get back to the larger Committee.”

The point here is that the subject is relevant to the larger group, but it would be more efficient to dsicuss the issue in a smaller sub-group.

A final note on the meaning of “to take offline”:

Like so many things in life, corporate jargon can be both infuriating and seductive. Today’s example of corporate jargon has both of these qualities. On the one hand, it is useful and well-understood. On the other hand, it’s infuriating because the literal meaning of the phrase is often the exact opposite of the intended meaning. Here’s why:

Take a look at the literal meaning. The phrase stems from the computer term “off-line,” which, according to Merriam-Webster means “not connected to or served by a system and especially a computer or telecommunications system; also : done independently of such a system.” In other words, the literal meaning of taking a conversation “offline” is that you want to take a conversation that is being discussed via some computer or telecommunication system (online) and take it offline, moving it to a live, in-person conversation with real human interaction (“offline”). In reality, though, the opposite is more frequently the case. You’re in a meeting with twenty live, human beings in the room, and when someone says they want to take an issue “offline,” they usually mean “I’ll call you about this later.”

• sanity check – n., broad review and critique obtained from a co-worker immediately before one finalizes a work deliverable; a second opinion.

Usage example: “Barbara, can you please do a sanity check on this e-mail before I send it to the CEO?” The implied question is: “would I be insane to send this email to the CEO, or is it safe to send it out as it is?”

Asking for a “sanity check” sends the signal that you want honest feedback. The phrase is mildly self-deprecating, with the humorous suggestion that you might be doing something less-than-sane. This sends the signal that it’s okay for the reviewer to be completely honest and candid in his or her review. In other words, you’d rather the reviewer tell you that your work product is a piece of junk than tell you that it’s okay to avoid hurting your feelings.

Compare:

“Hi Richard. My manager just told me that I should get your review and feedback on this Report before I submit it. I was planning on submitting it today. Can you please let me know if you have any comments? I’d appreciate it.”

versus

“Hi Richard. I have to file this Report today. Before I do, I’d really appreciate it if you could look it over and give it a sanity check”

By using the phrase “sanity check,” you’re sending the signal that you’re open for real criticism and comment.

The second signal you’re sending the reviewer is that you consider yourself nearly finished with the work product, and the critique should really be limited to “sanity” issues. Presumably, by the time you’ve asked for a sanity check, you’ve put in all the hours you expect and gotten all the detailed feedback from everyone you’d need to. The sanity check is just one last safety opinion — obtained from someone you trust — that is sought immediately before finalizing the deliverable. (I’ll define deliverable in a future post).

With a sanity check, you don’t need or expect the co-worker to spend enormous amounts of time and effort in his or her review. You are merely asking for someone’s broad review for “sanity,” rather than an in-depth second opinion. The kind of feedback you’d expect is: “Great job on your proposed email to the CEO. The one thing I would change is to remove the part of the e-mail where you tell the CEO that find him physically attractive. I’d stick to the main topic of your e-mail, which appears to be about fourth quarter sales estimates.” You wouldn’t expect a line-by-line edit of your work product, nor would you want feedback such as: “Do you really think Helvetica is the right font to send in an email to the CEO? I’m told he’s all about Courier.”

This lovely little piece of corporate jargon changes dramatically if it’s used vertically on the corporate hierarchy as opposed to horizontally between two colleagues at the same reporting level. There’s quite simply no point to asking your boss for a sanity check, since you really want to catch the insanity before it reaches the person who controls your annual review. Also, if your boss asks you for a sanity check, it puts you in an awkward position. When the king comes to you and says: “What do you think of my new clothes?,” it’s kind of hard to answer any way other than to compliment the garments. Same basic principle when the boss asks you if he’s insane: It’s probably a good idea to tell him he’s not.

Thanks to Mary for her sanity check of this blog post. According to Mary, I’m sane!

• to drink the Kool-Aid – v., 1. To believe or to emphatically voice belief in a company strategy, product, or slogan. 2. To have or to claim to have a high degree of loyalty and trust in a company executive, often when others have voiced the opposite view.

In today’s politically correct workplace, many employees are careful to avoid talking to co-workers about controversial subjects and social taboos such as religious cults or mass murder. Today’s piece of corporate jargon is a rare exception to this norm.

The source of the expression “to drink the Kook-Aid” is the hideously tragic Jonestown Massacre — when religious cult leader Jim Jones killed himself and over 900 men, women & children by poisoning them with cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. (Actually, it wasn’t Kool-Aid, it was “Flavor-Aid,” a powdered sugary drink mix very similar to Kool-Aid).

Although the cult members were certainly under duress to drink the poison, the murderous event is sometimes portrayed as mass suicide. It’s this image of blind, suicidal loyalty to cult leader Jim Jones that inspires the use of the phrase today to refer to corporate loyalty and enthusiasm.

It’s perhaps not surprising to hear the term used derisively, to imply that a person’s loyalty is clouding sound judgment, as in this hypothetical scene at a corporate all-hands:

SPEAKER: “I sincerely believe that the CEO’s new idea to shut down all corporate operations, sell all of our corporate real estate, and use the money to purchase three magic beans is a fabulous idea that just can’t fail!”

AUDIENCE MEMBER (to a co-worker): “Wow, the speaker has really been drinking the Kool-Aid, don’t you think?”

Oddly, though, it’s not uncommon to hear the phrase often used in a positive or enthusiastic way, even by the Kool-Aid drinker him or herself, as in:

“Maybe I’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid, but I honestly believe that when we introduce our newest product, the Bass-O-Matic ‘76, this will increase our company’s share of wallet.”

Fun with corporate jargon:

When people use this phrase at work, they’re probably not thinking directly about the Jonestown Massacre. Perhaps they aren’t even familiar with Jonestown. If you hear this phrase used in a lighthearted way and you’re in a particularly sinister and antisocial mood (and if you don’t care about keeping your job), you might consider innocently asking “drink Kool-Aid? What does that mean?” and forcing the speaker to actually explain the source of the jargon. Once the speaker has to explain the disgusting meaning of the phrase, you can make an awkward situation worse by reacting with maniacal laugher in the style of Amy Sedaris: “Jonestown? That’s hilarious!”

• share of wallet – n., amount of money people are spending on one product as opposed to a competing product.

Usage example: “We have gained significant share of wallet in the last three quarters.”

Like many pieces of corporate jargon, “share of wallet” is cute and catchy while at the same time slightly vulgar. The vulgarity of the phrase becomes clear after one compares “share of wallet” to the perfectly good term that it replaces: “Market share.” Instead of the clinical, economic, and completely emotionless image of gaining share of the “market,” this term prompts you to imagine your company and the competition fighting for the contents of an individual customer’s wallet. The image leaves the customer out of the equation, with the focus only on a desperate competition for the customer’s money, like wolves fighting over a carcass.

Every once in a while corporate America takes a word and gives it a brand new definition, totally unrelated to the word’s dictionary definition. Today’s word is exactly this type of corporate jargon.

Dictionary definition:

• penultimate – adj., next to the last.

Usage examples: “I’ve been reading this book for a long time, but thankfully I’m on the penultimate chapter.” Or: “Just walk down that hall, and you’ll find the restroom behind the penultimate door on the left.”

Corporate Jargon definition:

• penultimate – adj., the very best.

Usage example: “Have you seen our new product? It’s the penultimate!” Or: “We’re going to throw the penultimate office Christmas party this year.”

How does something like this happen? Remember the episode of Seinfeld where Mr. Pitt is observed eating a Snickers candy bar with a knife and fork, launching a national trend? It’s like that. It starts simply enough, with one innocent misuse the word by someone high up on the corporate food chain. In the corporate world, as in the rest of life, people tend to imitate those they admire (or those they fear).

If I were a corporate bigwig and I were in a mischievous mood, I might try to change the definition of a word just for fun. I would strategically misuse a word a few times (maybe at an All-Hands or at a staff meeting), and then watch the magic happen.

• bio break – n., a short halt to a business meeting for the purpose of giving attendees a chance to use the restroom.

This term is a bit vulgar, but useful nonetheless.

• all-hands – n., a meeting where everyone in the department is expected to attend.

Have you ever looked up in the sky at a huge flock of birds, and marveled at how the entire flock changes direction in perfect unison? Well, I don’t know anything about how the Bird King gets his flock to turn, but I do know how it’s done in the corporate world.

In the corporate world, all of those birds would receive emails requesting that they attend a mandatory meeting, during which they would sit patiently through three days of slides and lectures containing management’s future expectations on how, when, and where turns were expected in the future. This mandatory meeting is called an All-Hands.

• elevator pitch – n., an extremely short but compelling explanation.

Unfortunately, this lovely little piece of corporate jargon is misused 99.74% of the time.

Example of correct usage: You’re in an elevator with a potential customer. If you can make a compelling case for your product before the elevator reaches the 15th floor, you win the deal. You need to use the most compelling and short sales pitch possible. That’s the “elevator pitch.”

Typical usage: The term “elevator pitch” is applied in the corporate world to long, rambling descriptions of a product, weighed down with lots of extra adjectives and marketing filler-words. The only hope of finishing the pitch in a single elevator ride is to hit the emergency stop, or maybe (in the distant future), try to catch someone in a so-called “space elevator.”

• to have visibility into – v., to know

In the corporate world, people don’t seem to like admitting that they don’t know something. So if your boss asks you something you don’t know, just tell him or her that you don’t have visibility into the answer, as in:

BOSS: “Why is your report 2 months late?”
YOU: “Sorry, I don’t have visibility into that scheduling issue.”

or here’s another example:

BOSS: “How many dimes does it take to make a dollar?”
YOU: “That’s handled by finance, and unfortunately I don’t have visibility into how they’re dealing with that question. Let me ping my contacts in Finance and I’ll get back to you.”

This lovely little nugget of corporate jargon fits perfectly with corporate culture, because it deflects blame. Why don’t you know the answer? Simple: Someone is blocking your visibility! If only they would get out of your way, you would know everything.

[UPDATE (4/20/2007): In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used a slight variation of this corporate jargon when he answered a question relating to the firing of various U.S. attorneys. He said: "This was a process that was ongoing that I did not have transparency into."]

I’m going to try featuring some occasional posts on corporate jargon, starting today.

• bucket – a noun entirely synonymous with the word “category.”

The best corporate jargon is a word or phrase that completely replaces a superior word or phrase in the language known as “English.” Bucket is a great example of this. In some companies, the word “bucket” has now completely replaced the term “category,” without conveying any additional meaning.

Bucket is in pretty common use, but it still surprises me. I haven’t figured out why someone with a perfectly good alternative would choose to use the word usually associated with floor mopping and a makeshift bedside sick container. Maybe it’s being borrowed from the computing term “bucket?”