Language of Business

Let's talk a few minutes about the language of business and how many of the words we use are both archaic and perhaps disruptive. 

Most every profession has a language of its own — from Accounting, to Law, to Engineering, and to IT and so forth.  Sometimes the language hastens and helps communication, particularly to insiders to the profession.  Other times communication is hindered and perhaps even made oblique/obscure, such as with acronyms.

Let’s be a like the unicorn in a balloon factory and pop a few problematical parts of the language of business; there are many but here’s a few.

Start with ‘leadership.’  We take that word and use it freely by applying it to any person who has anyone reporting to them. If you're on the organization chart, particularly at the top, you are likely called the leader.   This is wrong and misleading.  Many people who have a position of power over others are simply not leaders.   Such a nomenclature paints with a too broad of a brush. Simply because one is in a position of authority does not imply leadership —I have met and worked with CEOs who are behaviorally no different than a supervisor, keeping their ‘thumb’ on everything that happens in the organization.  Some other CEOs have behavior more like that of a manager but no leadership behavior at all.  Let’s just not overgeneralize as to leadership, please.  There is an art and skill to leadership and one does not have to be at the top of the chart to be a leader.  What would the organization be like if it were composed of leaders, who create leaders, who create leaders?  An entire firm of leaders.

While we're talking about the organization chart itself it is misused and misunderstood.  It was derived from the old military command and control approach with each successive upward being ‘in charge’ of the immediately preceding level.  In the military, if you're trying to "take a hill," it is seemingly appropriate.  Tell someone to ‘go take the hill,’ no questions, just action.  Our business lexicon incorporates that philosophy — who reports whom, who directs other specifying their responsibilities, and so on. 

Curious? How many people do you know, how many people have you worked with, how many people have you employed that all have responsibilities but have done little to accomplish something because of those responsibilities?  Our language problem is not about responsibilities, our problem is about lack of accountabilities. If so, then redefine the chart.  Change the organization chart into an Accountability chart.  Who is accountable to whom. And what are they accountable for. Who, in turn, is accountable to you.  Not report to, but accountable to.  Clarity ensues and accomplishments increase.

Today’s final balloon of language of business revolves are job descriptions.  We have been taught to write them in order to identify the key parts/functions of each job.  I believe that the job descriptions that we write today do not serve organizations well for the same reason as ‘responsibilities.’  Job descriptions are about responsibilities, not accountabilities.  In some cases, those very job descriptions are used against you, “that’s not my job.”  To be provocative, how about rewriting job descriptions to have three parts: (1) what the five key roles you have (not 13), (2) what are the key things for which you are accountable, and (3) what is the behavior that you bring to the workplace.  Simple — roles, accountabilities and behaviors.  Work to get an understanding and acceptance on all three.   

Leaders creating leaders, with accountability and behavior.  Hmmm.  Perhaps it is time for the language of business to change.