5 ms·

I really admire the creative bullshit these execs come up with, AI can't compete: "This means adapting our organizational structures to improve agility and acco

I really admire the creative bullshit these execs come up with, AI can't compete: "This means adapting our organizational structures to improve agility and accountability, establishing unambiguous ownership and driving improved efficiency and transparency through reduced layering".

asynchronous 3y ago
Can’t imagine being an exec and getting paid to “write” this dribble
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- __loam 3y ago
  They're paid to be the hatchet man, not for writing this. When the shareholders tell them to swing the ax, that's their job.
gopher2000 3y ago
That doesn't even read that bad IMO. They are recognizing that they're organizationally bloated today and are laying people off to be more cost-effective. Pretty straight forward.
- darkwater 3y ago
  Your translation IS pretty straightforward. The original text is straightforward as any corp-speak can be (so, not at all).
orthecreedence 3y ago
I love how the "leveraging resource to add value using laser-focused synergistic..." business double-speak euphamisms can also be used to fire people, not just take up air during management meetings.
belval 3y ago
I'm all for criticizing empty corpo talk, but that quote is actually pretty reasonable and not empty. They are just saying that they are simplifying their organizational chart so that they don't have teams with overlapping responsabilities. It's just a polite way to say "we noticed that we had 2 teams doing the same thing so we merged them and dropped the resulting excess headcount".
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > that quote is actually pretty reasonable and not empty It does have an actual discernible message, which puts it above a lot of other corporate gobbledygook. But it's still corporate gobbledygook that requires careful deciphering to understand what it says. I don't consider it reasonable at all. It's slightly meaningful word vomit.
  - belval 3y ago
    There can be several reasons why they (and their employees) would want that though. Being very honest is not a positive in this case. Duplicate work and ambiguous ownership is fuzzy and unclear. They won't come out and say "we overhired and now we are shedding our deadweight" because no one wins with that more crude statement. The least you can do for the laid off employees in this situation is try and not make it harder for them to find new jobs, so you keep the message vague.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      It seems to me that "we overhired and need to fix that" is a message that would make things easier for those laid off. It's saying that the people are being laid off because of a business misjudgement by the company, not because those employees performed poorly.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >They won't come out and say "we overhired and now we are shedding our deadweight" because no one wins with that more crude statement. to be frank, we should probably stop pretending they "overhired". That term implies that these MBAs were somehow blindsided by the imminent recession that analysts have talked about as far back as 2020 and that this wasn't an intentional strategy to maximize growth while labor was "cheap" (or at least, the money to hire labor). This was all calculated and most companies still came out of this larger than when they entered the pandemic. It was all calculated and workers were nothing more than expendable pawns. Not much we can do about it without stronger labor laws, but that's a multi-decade battle.
trosi 3y ago
Kind of ironic of them to mention "improved transparency" while writing in the most possible opaque way. Just say it as it is.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DryLabRebel 3y ago
I appreciate how many people have defended this statement as 'clear and straightforward' by providing a way clearer and very straightforward summary of it with 1/3 the word count...

asynchronous 3y ago

Can’t imagine being an exec and getting paid to “write” this dribble

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
__loam 3y ago
They're paid to be the hatchet man, not for writing this. When the shareholders tell them to swing the ax, that's their job.

gopher2000 3y ago

That doesn't even read that bad IMO. They are recognizing that they're organizationally bloated today and are laying people off to be more cost-effective. Pretty straight forward.

darkwater 3y ago
Your translation IS pretty straightforward. The original text is straightforward as any corp-speak can be (so, not at all).

orthecreedence 3y ago

I love how the "leveraging resource to add value using laser-focused synergistic..." business double-speak euphamisms can also be used to fire people, not just take up air during management meetings.

belval 3y ago

I'm all for criticizing empty corpo talk, but that quote is actually pretty reasonable and not empty. They are just saying that they are simplifying their organizational chart so that they don't have teams with overlapping responsabilities. It's just a polite way to say "we noticed that we had 2 teams doing the same thing so we merged them and dropped the resulting excess headcount".

JohnFen 3y ago
> that quote is actually pretty reasonable and not empty It does have an actual discernible message, which puts it above a lot of other corporate gobbledygook. But it's still corporate gobbledygook that requires careful deciphering to understand what it says. I don't consider it reasonable at all. It's slightly meaningful word vomit.
- belval 3y ago
  There can be several reasons why they (and their employees) would want that though. Being very honest is not a positive in this case. Duplicate work and ambiguous ownership is fuzzy and unclear. They won't come out and say "we overhired and now we are shedding our deadweight" because no one wins with that more crude statement. The least you can do for the laid off employees in this situation is try and not make it harder for them to find new jobs, so you keep the message vague.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    It seems to me that "we overhired and need to fix that" is a message that would make things easier for those laid off. It's saying that the people are being laid off because of a business misjudgement by the company, not because those employees performed poorly.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >They won't come out and say "we overhired and now we are shedding our deadweight" because no one wins with that more crude statement. to be frank, we should probably stop pretending they "overhired". That term implies that these MBAs were somehow blindsided by the imminent recession that analysts have talked about as far back as 2020 and that this wasn't an intentional strategy to maximize growth while labor was "cheap" (or at least, the money to hire labor). This was all calculated and most companies still came out of this larger than when they entered the pandemic. It was all calculated and workers were nothing more than expendable pawns. Not much we can do about it without stronger labor laws, but that's a multi-decade battle.

trosi 3y ago

Kind of ironic of them to mention "improved transparency" while writing in the most possible opaque way. Just say it as it is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

DryLabRebel 3y ago

I appreciate how many people have defended this statement as 'clear and straightforward' by providing a way clearer and very straightforward summary of it with 1/3 the word count...