>>we tried it when we had interims in the Public Trust
>> Office.
>
>Why did you do that?
Obviously I don't know Bromp's lot.
But it typically comes because they feel that if they are open, and the outside world can see exactly what their job is, how they do it, the skills required to do it and their processes and practices that it will be forcibly changed.
Usually they are correct.
The mistake they most often make is to believe that the change will be bad or disadvantageous. But typically there will be people in that group who will be unsuited to the future for one reason or another, so one can quite understand it.
So many times I deal with people who believe they deserve continued employment because of what they have done in the past or what they know about the past. Whereas if they focussed on showing their value to the future they would do so much better.
If someone can show me that they are truly indispensable, then it will become an absolute goal of mine to remove that dependency and show that person that they are no longer indispensable so they better start showing us why they are valuable for the future.
However, the use of obscure terms is wider than that. Typically it's part of a mind set that contributed to getting into that position in the first place.
Fundamentally the art of communication is to effectively pass information and the passing of that information is the responsibility of the person 'speaking'. Obscure vocabulary, jargon and similar cannot possibly contribute to that if the listener is not likely to understand.
So, why is it done? To show superiority? To make the other feel excluded? There are no good reasons.
And to claim it's habit, I picked it up from Mr. X etc. etc. is just feebly trying to excuse something being done intentionally.
If I use a big or obscure word am I really saying that is because it is the most efficient way? Of course not.
It is a behaviour I detest and I consider it a form of bullying, which is *THE* thing guaranteed to get me going.
|
