And the winner of the Corporate Speak Award is......

I need to get in contact with the spokeswoman for a company called Brinker.
As from today she is the proud new owner of the Corporate Speak Award.

The CSA is granted to anyone who can:

• sound very important
• use big words
• and put these two together so that you end up with something that is totally and utterly baffling.

Most importantly, Corporate Speak itself must leave the reader/listener initially impressed. The complete bewilderment has to come later when the reader/listener actually disects the words used.

So, how did our winner come to win this particular award.

Well, as spokeswoman for a company called Brinker, she was commenting in a newspaper article about how the recent closure of one of their restaurants, Chillis, may be reviewed. She said: " As the economic environment evolves we would certainly reconsider re-entering the market with our Chili's Bar & Grill. We are continually seeking franchise and joint venture partners who share our vision for making Brinker the globally dominant casual dining restaurant portfolio company."

Now, doesn't that sound impressive?

Actually, it's a complete load of waffle? Ignoring the clever aliteration which encouraged her to use 'evolve' as opposed to 'improve', and the use of 'reconsidering' when surely just 'considering' would have done, it's the last bit that really wins it for me.

So, just what is a "globally dominant casual dining restaurant portfolio company." Oh, I see - she means RESTAURANT. And does she really think that anyone daft enough to want to joint venture with her company, really sets out with the thought that they could be a partner in a globally dominant etc etc? I doubt it very much. I think they probably just want to earn lots of money.

Unfortunately our CSA winner doesn't stop there. When discussing the redundancies already made, she says: " Brinker International has voluntarily offered to compensate employees for hours worked until the restaurant closure date to the extent those hours exceed the government compensation, which is over and above what is required by redundancy."

Now, she's really got me here. I have now read this 26 times and I still don't understand it. All I can work out is that she is saying that they will pay people for the work they've already done. I'm no HR expert but I think that you have to do that by law anyway.

But if that is what she is saying then why didn't she just say it?

Perhaps she was just desparate to win one of our prestigious awards......

This blog appeared on Bnet (www.bnet.co.uk)

Beyond our control. Really?

So, just how many people in your company play a role in helping you to sell more? Just the sales team perhaps? Or maybe even marketing as well?

Some companies - the smart ones - would say that it was all of them. That by creating company evangelists in your business, you have a whole bunch of people who just want to talk about how great you are. One of the big challenges however, is making sure that when they do talk about your company, that they say the right things.

A few years ago, one of the Swiss banks ran a great newspaper ad. It depicted a scene from ancient Britain and at the centre of it were two men wielding axes over a pile of rocks. The accompanying words were clear and very concise. I can't remember them exactly but they went something along the lines of:

" A traveller came across two men. He asked the first man what he was doing and he replied that he was breaking up rock. He asked the second man what he was doing and he replied that he was helping to build a cathedral."

Isn't that brilliant?

I'm not sure what it has to do with a bank - now why does that not surprise me - but it was certainly very impactful. So, impactful in fact that I'm still writing about it 10 years later.

Of course this was clearly a copy of the famous - and probably apocryphal - story concerning former US President Lyndon Johnson. When visiting the NASA base in the early 60's he approached a man who was wearing overalls and holding a broom. President Johnson asked him what he did, to which the man replied: " Me sir? Well, sir, I'm helping to put man on the moon."

I heard another more recent story. Michael Dell visited one of the regional offices of the company that bears his name. On entering the reception area, he walked straight over to the receptionist and asked her to describe what the company did. Unfortunately this poor woman, put on the spot by the biggest cheese, was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. Michael Dell then instructed the local management team that he would re-visit the company in six months and that he when he returned he would expect every single employee to state, with confidence and understanding, exactly what it is that the company does.

I don't know if he returned. But I do know that within two months of his first visit every single person in the company could articulate what made the company special.

But the question begs. Why did it need the threat from the man at the top to make this happen? Why wasn't it just part of the company's DNA, that everyone was clear about what the company did and why it did it? The fact is that Dell is far, far from alone.

Think about your own business - can everyone in the company repeat the man-on-the-moon mantra about why his or her own company exists? I doubt it very much? So, why do we, as communicators, let this happen? I think it's a case of responsibility - no single person is responsible for making this happen. We develop our business in silos and while the good folks in marketing might be able have a fair stab at the why-we-exist stab and while the sales guys will have their own interpretations depending on the deal they are trying to land, my guess is that most other employees in most other departments haven't got a clue.

And when you consider that a company's employees are the best evangelists you can have, then that's a real crying shame.

This blog appeared on Bnet (www.bnet.co.uk)

Out of Control

I'm always intrigued by the way that people deliver bad news. Particularly if the person or persons delivering the bad news are responsible for the bad news itself.

I was reminded of this at my local train station this morning when I went to buy a ticket. The office was shut and on its door was a poster which read: " Please note: This ticket will be closed today due to circumstances beyond our control."

Then in smaller letters: " We apologise for any inconvenience caused."

Which left me wondering.

And I wondered if it really was closed because of circumstances " beyond their control."

Because the " beyond our control " bit actually suggested that they weren't really apologising (perhaps that was the reason for the small letters), and that it wasn't their fault because they couldn't do anything about it.

So, I became intrigued about what on earth could have happened that was beyond their control. As far as I was concerned there hadn't been a natural disaster overnight. War hadn't suddenly broken out in this leafy suburb of Berkshire, making it impossible for staff to find their way through the bomb craters and barbed wire to get to the office in time.

No, the only thing I could think of was that the person who usually doles out the tickets had been taken sick. Fair enough. But does that still really mean that the closure of the office was absolutely genuinely beyond their control.

Of course it wasn't. If National Rail really, really cared about its customers it would have support staff readily available to take over in such situations. (And let's face it, the ticket office is a pretty important function of the ability to run a train service. If you've ever been on the withering end of an on-board ticket checker (or whatever they are called these days) who clearly doesn't believe the reason why you don't have a ticket, well then you'll know what I mean.)

If they had this resource support structure in place then the chances are that they would have been able to open the ticket office.

So, it wasn't beyond their control - they just chose not to put in place the systems needed to continue to provide a service to their customers.

Think about your own business. How many times have you ever told a customer that you couldn't deliver a service to them due to circumstances " beyond your control." Almost never ever, I bet. If you can't deliver it, you apologise and take the flack.

" Beyond our control " is a get out. It removes responsibility for the poor service. Customers see through it, see it for what it is, and all that does is further break the trust between the supplier and the customer. And that ain't good enough.

Organisations like National Rail have worked very, very hard to get their act together. But sometimes they just don't get it when it comes to customer service. They will tell you until they are blue in the face that they are truly customer-centric - but unless you put the investment in place to make that a reality then it will always only ever be hot air.

This blog appeared on Bnet (www.bnet.co.uk)

How honest are you as a communicator? Candid or Candied?

Particularly when it comes to delivering 'negative messages'. And even more so in these days when it's all about teamwork, motivating, encouraging, and going out of our way to understand the other person's point of view.

The ability to communicate has always been critical. Its only in recent years that it has become treated as a science but its always been treated as one of the most - if not THE most - critical of disciplines. It was John D. Rockefeller who said many, many years ago: " The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee and I will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun."

At the heart of this ability is being able to communicate effectively. And of course that means getting people on side, communicating effectively with them so that we get both buy-in and a motivated team.

But one thing has always been common - it's the clarity of the content that is critical. Think about people who have inspired you at work. I bet the one thing they had in common is that you knew what it was that they were telling you. They were clear, concise, to the point and, importantly, they were honest. You knew where you stood with them.

Now think of the wafflers in your life. Those vague people. The ones that didn't know what they really wanted from you. And even the ones that had to deliver bad news but sweetened the pill so much that you didn't have a clue what they were on about. I bet you that they aren't on your bosses-who-inspired me list.

I remember talking to a colleague about great bosses. She mentioned someone who I vaguely knew but who I'd always thought of as being a bit of a dragon. I therefore challenged her on her choice, to which she replied: " I may not have always enjoyed the journey but boy did I learn a lot."

Similarly I remember taking someone to task by explaining that I'd been "disappointed". She told me off by saying that disappointed was a crap word. I was fluffing it. It was clear that I was mightily pissed off and should tell her that. Then she would know where she stood and could respond accordingly.

Part of the challenge we have is that we all want to be good with people - we all want to have that asset that Rockefeller described as the greatest ability of all. But with that comes responsibility. In today's motivational culture we just have to make sure that, as communicators, we are clear about what is good and what is bad.

That doesn't mean to say that we have to rubbish people, or deliberately go out of our way to hurt people. We just have to be honest. Honest communicators.

This blog appeared on Bnet (www.bnet.co.uk)