Here’s my list: Those over-used buzz words.

I opt for a simple description of a buzz-word: An original concept whose meaning becomes fuzzier and woolier with each instance of ineffectual use. 

Using a buzz-word is, in and of itself, not wrong, of course; it’s the over-use of such a word which obfuscates true meaning and ultimately, hinders rather than furthers clear communication.

We are all prone to inject our communication, especially the formal ones, and presentations, with common buzz-words. It is akin to displaying a verbal badge, affirming our belonging with the group that claims acquaintance to these buzz-words. 

We want to be in the know, not be left-behind, and swim with the tide. I find myself, increasingly resisting the use of such words and opting for simpler, clearer, even if longer sentences, to ensure a firmer grasp of the topic of my expression. Not easy.

1. Value-addition: Used to describe all and sundry, from a new product feature to mundane tweaks.

2. Brand equity: Anything that goes with ‘brand’ actually. ‘Brand-value’, ‘brand-strength’, ‘brand-visibility’ can sometimes, (not always), point to an inward-looking approach and neglect a real assessment of weaknesses.

3. Paradigm-shifting: All events, great and small, cannot be paradigm-shifting. Ought to be used selectively, for those genuine, transformational, and likely permanent shifts.

4. Cutting-edge: Time will come, when a change of the office stationery will be labelled, cutting-edge.

5. Core values: Bandied about, and expected to be at the tips of all tongues, from the janitor to the CEO, but very rarely are these statements deconstructed for practical application. It is fallacious to assume that an employee would naturally co-opt an organization’s core values, or by default.

6. Think outside the box: Yes, we must, as long as we are first executing the laid-out strategy assiduously, and without distractions.

7. Best practices: These set of ideals to be adhered to, can be so vague as to be brandished like a flaming sword without any reference points. The mere use of the word is supposed to allay all fears, and quell all doubts.

8. Optimized solutions: Which customer would want broad, generic and bloated solutions?

9. Robust: This tall claim is applied to prop up descriptions and is used as a needless qualifier, instead of using words that are more appropriate to the item being described.

10. Synergize: Synergy happens when the whole is greater than the sum of parts. Falls flat when everything and everybody is supposed to synergize.

11. Take it to the next level: Often used, without articulating what the next level really looks like, alongside metrics to define attainment.

12. Low-hanging fruit: Supposed to indicate opportunity that can be appropriated easily. Again, when misapplied, it overlooks its context within a broader set of choices.

In the words of Michael Travis, an executive search consultant, "Aspiring managers would do well to remember that if you can't express your idea without buzz-words, there may not be an idea there at all." 

So next time, you want to enthusiastically embrace a buzz- word, you can opt instead, for succinct but clear words, and dazzle with your sparkling clarity of thought.

Image credit: brandrants.com

Here's my list: Those commonly used, incorrect words.

Ever wonder about some routinely used words and phrases, that many of us have simply adopted as part of acceptable parlance? Plenty of them are uniquely Indian (bless our hearts), and while some induce quite a few fall-out-of-your-chair funny laughs, others are less charming. So, in no particular order, I’m listing here 12 usages, with the bright-eyed hope that they might cause us to pause, and think before we pen.

1. Updation: I dare say we have the software industry to thank for this one. This is a recent addition to our lexicon. How about such and such ‘needs to be updated’ instead? Even MS Office marked it out as an error and suggested the insipid ‘updating’.

2. Affect/Effect: “Use ‘affect’ as a verb meaning to influence something and ‘effect’ for the something that was influenced”, thus sayeth Vocubulary.com. As in, ‘She attempted to affect me, and it had the desired effect’.  

3. Learnings: Almost everyone uses this; and it does have a pompous air about it. Whatever happened to ‘key lessons learnt?’

4. Loose or lose: You may loosen your hold without losing your mind. Come now, this ain’t that hard.

5. Do the needful: This is often used to imply that the recipient is supposed to grasp the subject matter without additional explanation. You may argue it isn’t altogether incorrect; but perhaps ‘please do what is needed’ will work, and more elegantly at that. Maybe we can do one better and simply say ‘please help’.

6. Revert back: Particularly in my early years, it was almost standard practice to read e-mails closing off with the statutory ‘please revert back’. First of all, to revert is to return to a previous situation or condition. Adding ‘back’ to ‘revert’ is a double whammy. Or should I say double Dutch. Let’s try ‘Reply’ or ‘Respond’, shall we?

7. It’s and Its: It’s refers to a shortened construction of ‘it is’. Therefore it’s correct to say ‘It’s going to be a long day, but use ‘its standards are exacting’.

8. Typo error: Unless you want to say something is a typographical error, stick to ‘typo’.

9. Discuss about: 'Let’s discuss the matter'. Period.

10. Today night: I’ve often heard it being said, “I will complete it by today night”. Truncate the last three words to ‘Tonight’ and voila, shorter, sweeter, smarter.

11. Right and correct: No biggie this, but it’s best to reserve ‘correct’ for something definitive and incontrovertible, and ‘right’ when expressing an opinion or while referring to subjective matter.


12. Preponed: Now this one although technically incorrect, is irresistible, for its sheer convenience. I would gladly pitch for the addition of ‘preponed’ to the Oxford dictionary. We all use it, save for the indefatigable purist. ‘Bring the meeting forward/advance’, is a mouthful. 

No secret sauce to using ‘propah English’, but a case ought to be made for keeping from committing these relatively minor errors; all the more, since much of our communication, even the written word, creates a lasting impression.
 
All said and done, regional quirks and catchphrases all boil pleasingly in the melting cauldron of an ‘original’ language.

And I’m a fan, mind you, and heartily respond with my ‘good name’ on enquiry, run to ‘catch a train’ and can always ‘kindly adjust’.
 

Intractable buzz-words in the next post…

Stop multi-tasking. Now.

For far too long, the ‘art’ of multi-tasking has been considered an enviable skill to master, and women, particularly credited with being naturals at it. The more tasks you can juggle, the better. The more items you can simultaneously clear off your list, the smarter.

I’ve paused to consider the real efficiency of the multi-tasker; and admittedly, I always thought of myself as one. A few months ago, as I sat at my desk, with a dozen files and as many browser tabs open on my laptop, it struck me to take stock of just how much I had accomplished despite being exceedingly busy.

I’d come to work bright and early, had my to-do list next to me - items broken down into tasks and sub-tasks, and a miniaturized version of that larger list comprising activities to be completed that day. As the day wore on, I realized that I’d spent a good portion of my working hours, on low-value, routine tasks and a longer-term project lay untouched, awaiting that elusive hour of uncluttered time. Lumbering on, I had responded to several seemingly urgent e-mails, distracted by every plunk signaling the arrival of yet another one in my inbox (some of them forwards), even diverted to a news maze by clicking on links with more links embedded within.

So, how does one stay productive by deliberately keeping blinkers on, and avoiding the mindless lure of the modern information glut? Can one treat a work day as bands of time dedicated to consciously chosen activities, instead of a seamless day where tasks are handled as they come, and all at once?

For starters, I’m finding the oft-repeated ‘eat that frog’ exhortation to be reliable and practical counsel. Most of us, most of the times, have a tendency to procrastinate, and put off unpleasant, arduous or difficult tasks – whether it’s an uncomfortable conversation with a co-worker, a project that requires skills that may not be a strength, or preparing for a presentation you may not be looking forward to. But tackling that mountain early on, can give one a boost to act on the relative molehills lying ahead.  It also works as a confidence-building measure being accompanied by a sense of accomplishment.

Second, no matter how busy a work-day is, I believe in apportioning time for the higher-value, longer-term, and skill-developing activities. It’s easy to breeze through 9 hours in a relentless execution of mundane tasks; your valuable time pre-determined by other’s priorities. Pretty soon, each of your days has blended into the other and you’re hard-pressed in cultivating the stand-out moments that would have helped shape and sharpen skills necessary for the next level – even for a lateral shift aimed at broadening your perspective and experience.

And lastly, set apart time, for absorbing the trends and practices that are shaping your industry. In the knowledge economy, the value of having a fifty-thousand view of your industry matters, and can sometimes mean the difference for an elevation, between the candidate with a keen understanding of the minutiae, and another who’s not only deft in his domain, but has a grasp of where his part fits into the larger whole  of the industry. So, while it’s important to work your tools, it’s also vital to sharpen your axe.

Of course, this list is not exhaustive and may not even scratch the surface of a productivity manual. As well, what works for me, may not work for you. The idea is to present an alternative to the commonly touted ‘virtue’ of multi-tasking, for taking control of the steering wheel at your desk. 

A more intentional and willful accounting of time, a carving out of time chunks for more imaginative work, and an ounce of steely determination can keep you from blurry multi-tasking. Beginning tomorrow. 

You could find ‘The Office’ at your office.

I had to push through all of Season 1 of the acclaimed series, ‘The Office’ (the American version). The setting seemed removed from reality and nonsensical, and the characters caricaturish.   

The warming-up happened with Season 2, when it began to sink in that neither the plot nor the cast of characters were meant to dish out meaningful commentary. It was no blazing comet but more like an unremarkable boulder in your backyard that you grow fond of simply because it represents the ordinary, the mundane, and feels like familiar terrain.

So, do you think you’ve come across these ‘personalities’ at your workplace? Or do you relate to one or a few of them?

Jim Halpert: The quintessential ‘nice guy’. Likeable and friendly. He takes no great risks, and strives to avoid conflict. He will not hurt you but neither will he go to any lengths to make amends or put himself on the line for a cause. Is not a complainer and generally goes coasting and floating through life. 

Pam Beasly: Shy without being reticent. Eager-to-please without being insincere. She has potential; the ability to gradually make course-corrections through self-reflection. She’s careful not to tread on any toes, and can be taken for granted due to an undemanding demeanor.  

Stanley Hudson: Unobservant, irritable and grouchy. All he wants to do is come at 9 and leave at 5. Don’t blur my line of sight with your face, thank you very much.

Oscar Fernandes: The self-proclaimed preserver of intelligence within the group. Condescending eye-rolling and head-shaking aside, he does have substance.

Kevin Malone: Slow and lumbering. He merely gets through the day. His laughter is his self-defense. He needs kindness (just like all of us); sadly, rarely do folks consider it worth their while.

Phyllis Vance: Matronly and unvocal, she literally stuck to her knitting. Until the day, a man comes into her life who treats her with respect and pride. Her self-esteem gets a boost, and that’s great news; if only, her sense of worth did not come from being desired by another.

Angela Martin: Severe and harsh; although it’s reserved for the people around her. She however, makes no great demands of herself. To the outward appearance, she’s prim and proper, nattily dressed and productive.

Ryan Howard: Unfocused and hare-brained. Starts out strong but loses his way. He’s now unmotivated to try.

Kelly Kapoor: Of course, she doesn’t love her job. She’d rather inhabit her fantasy land and be surrounded by a legion of ardent admirers. Entertaining, nonetheless.

Toby Flenderson: He blends with the wall. Does not care to make himself heard. But give him a chance, and he might surprise you. Problem is, you have to give him a chance; and he would need to try.

Michael Scott: He belongs to another working-day and age (perhaps pre-industrial revolution). Self-destructive with low self-awareness, he is a hazard to himself and is his own worst enemy. He is not mean, but his world revolves around his personal drama, and the people around him are only an assemblage of extras in the movie of his life.

Dwight Schrute: Okay, here I give up. D. Schrute defies categorization. He is an odd agglomeration of inane absurdities with a completely upturned sense of priorities. You’d have to see him to believe him. But his is the bobblehead I’d want on my desk – as a reminder not to live every single day, waiting for the shadows to turn to light; always striving but never accomplishing, always coping but never recovering.

Photo: http://www.fanpop.com/

LATERAL THINKING: Why I Recommend a Stint Outside Your Industry

I began my career on December the fifteenth, 2009, lobbying the B-school placements team to bring in a Biotech firm that I was keen on starting with. (Before you ask- No; the sun didn’t shine brighter, the grass didn’t look greener. It felt like just another day in Mumbai’s version of winter)

I wanted the opportunity to put to work, my training in the sciences, and combine it with the newly acquired understanding of business.

With Biocon, my responsibilities steadily rose from a brand executive handling a premium, differentiated product, to a manager developing a small team of associates. Apart from the bread and butter job description, I also asked for and was granted additional opportunities in alliance management, business development/market research and sales projects.

After 3 years and 9 months into a role which offered both growth and diversity, the easier choice was to continue enjoying more of a good thing. Desiring a rounded experience in marketing, I shifted to the MedTech industry.

What this stint helped inculcate notably, was analytic rigor, cross-functional collaboration, and launching product offerings through a rubric of methodical evaluation. Having to work with upstream product marketers required me to keep a close ear to the ground, and report insights with the potential to be meaningful to markets scattered across the world. I benefited greatly from the expertise of professionals based out of Smiths Medical’s multifarious markets (from developed countries like the UK, US, Australia and Japan to the emerging economies of South America, South East Asia and Africa), and was compelled by their logical approach to business challenges.

One of the more satisfying aspects of brand management in the medical devices arena, is the latitude to upgrade your product based on customer feedback and market trends, in a short time-frame (in contrast with Pharma).

In my opinion, a great advantage of a break-out spell is that it forces you to infuse fresh thinking while solving problems; where your former industry may have ingrained methods that you’ve never had reason to contest. 

This is no epiphany, but most industries hire from within, most of the time – people who’ve acquired experience in certain markets/therapy areas or even functional niches, tend to move on (or move upward) in similar roles. Although this tack is sensible for practical reasons from the recruiter’s perspective, it does not lend itself to paving the path for candidates with atypical experience. In the landscape of this workplace, both your peer set and senior colleagues often reinforce tried and tested methods, and rely overtly or subtly on industry truisms. Wouldn't you stand to gain by challenging yourself to step outside the box, for a stretch?

Here’s a final thought and this is for industry insiders (from all my accumulated wisdom of 20-something years):  
Hire for attitude; you can train for everything else (well, almost).

What do you think? Please post your thoughts below; I'd like to hear from you.

Photo: http://www.backyardmissionary.com/