Karl du Fresne writes “I have in front of me a large newspaper advertisement for a firm called Hudson“.  Du Fresne then proceeds to take apart the language Hudson (a recruitment agency) uses to describe itself and the advertised role - its own public sector service director. It’s not an attack on Hudson per se, but rather on the prevailing fashion for over-blown, pompous and jargon-ridden language.

The ad said: “Hudson Wellington has reviewed how we can best partner with our public sector clients and assist them to achieve key outcomes. We have done this by integrating our three proven service lines to provide full employment life cycle solutions …”

“Key outcomes” is a glib, empty phrase that’s routine in ads for public sector policy analysts, but can anyone outside the jargon-laden HR business hazard a guess as to what “full employment life cycle solutions” are? Or are these terms merely intended to create an impression of a company that has taken the banal process of executive recruitment to some esoteric, previously unimagined new level?

I also dislike the hyperbolic use of “partner” (verb or noun), implying some kind of special, stronger-than-normal arrangement between buyer and seller. Many customer/supplier relationships are indeed very strong, long-lasting and mutually-beneficial, but whenever I see the term used explicitly, my cynical reaction is that the vendor hopes to imply some exclusive service (rarely true) or insider advantage (rarely given or received), and the customer wants to squeeze some extra concessions out of over-keen vendors.

Anyway, back to Du Fresne, who picks up on “solutions” (for products and services) and other in-phrases:

It wasn’t until the last paragraph that I came across the word I’d been waiting for… Ah! There it was: “strategic”. I knew no self-respecting HR firm could get through an ad without mentioning the word at least once. I see it in executive recruitment ads almost every day and have only the vaguest idea of what it’s supposed to mean. But it sounds impressive.

… Does any of this matter? No, not in the way famine in Africa matters, or peace in the Middle East, or global recession, or violent crime. But in a small way it matters.

It matters if you value and respect the English language and don’t like to see it misused and degraded. It matters if you value honest, straightforward words over flim-flam. And it matters if you’re concerned that in both the public sector and in business, too much energy is expended creating smoke and mirrors; constructing flashy facades behind which business is conducted a lot more expensively but no more efficiently than it used to be before people thought of words like “strategic” and “solutions”.

Du Fresne’s invective is a welcome reminder to use clear, plain language. Say what you mean and mean what you say.