CHAPTER 1

Platitudes:Empty Words that Make the Most Noise

Market churn has set us adrift.
What we need is a paradigm shift.
Get our ducks in a row,
push the envelope,
to keep us from going o'er the cliff.

The boss says, "Let's touch base.
Make game-plans for the next phase.
We'll have meetings and talks.
Think outside the box,
to ensure we're still in the race."

But the elephant in the room
refuses to sing to our tune,
or dance to our beat,
sing from the same sheet
—even once in a blue moon.

From "A cliché-ridden corporate crisis in five limericks" (Kailash Awati)

We are an elite team ...

What better way to start a book that takes a critical look at all the messedup stuff going on in organisations than with the cult movie "MysteryMen," starring Ben Stiller, Hank Azaria and William H. Macey.

In this movie, the fate of Champion City rests in the hands of sevenself-declared superheroes. The reality is that our intrepid "heroes" are fairlyinept. Among them, we have the perpetually angry "Mr Furious," the forkflinging "Blue Raja," "The Shoveler" and the mysterious "Sphinx." Despitetheir individual failings, which they are oblivious to, they somehow bandtogether to triumph against the evil "Casanova Frankenstein."

The Sphinx character is our favourite. He is a master ofquasi-philosophical, Zen-like utterances that have no meaning whatsoever.Consider the following classic Sphinxisms:

"To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn."

"You must lash out with every limb, like the octopus who playsthe drums."

"He who questions training only trains himself at askingquestions."

At one point, Mr Furious grows tired of these teachings, and thisfollowing dialogue ensues:

MR FURIOUS: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bitformulaic? (Mimicking the sphinx) If you want to push somethingdown, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have togo right. It's ...

SPHINX: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn tomaster your rage ...

MR FURIOUS: Your rage will become your master? That's what you were goingto say. Right? Right?

SPHINX: ... Not necessarily

This exchange is a classic illustration of a platitude: a meaninglessstatement that is presented as if it were significant and original. The wordis derived from plat, the French word for flat. Platitudes are exceedinglycommon in management and consulting circles. In a paper, Barabba,Pourdenhad and Ackoff (2002) stated that:

"... consultants are of two types: self-promoting gurus andeducators. Gurus that pontificate and promote their proprietaryproblem solving techniques do not educate their clients. Theypromote maxims that define rules of behaviour but do notincrease the competence of managers. They promote theirproprietary solution as a fix for all problems instead of tryingto increase managerial understanding of a particular corporatepuzzle. They provide maxims that are really platitudes andpanaceas without proof of effectiveness ..."

Of course, one person's profundity may be another's platitude;whether or not a particular statement is platitudinous is indeed subjective.Nevertheless, the term is often used in a pejorative sense to describeseemingly profound statements that a particular person views as unoriginalor shallow. In this chapter we'll examine platitudes, some blatant, others alittle more subtle, to see just how insidious they are and what they can tellyou about the culture and maturity of organisations.

Mission and vision statements—too easy

The first and most obvious fertile hunting ground for platitudes that ourfriend, the Sphinx, would be proud of would have to be organisationalmission and vision statements.

"The mission and vision statement maketh the organisation," says theCEO. But does it really? Will those couple of sentences in large font,proudly hanging on the wall behind reception, serve as the rudder used bymanagement to guide the organisation to greatness?

For many reasons we think not, but we are not the first to be cynical.This topic has been done to death elsewhere, so we will simply touch onit here before we get to our main point.

For a start, the phrase "mission statement" is not the latest, nor is itthe first term to be used to describe organisational aims and objectives.Nowadays though, many organisations do not label their aims andobjectives as a mission statement.

So, why does a term like "mission statement" go out of fashion?Typically, this happens when everyone starts using it at every opportunity.

Soon, the term loses its original intent, impact and import. The firstpeople to notice this loss of meaning are those on the receiving end ofthe platitude; employees who have to translate the mission statement intoreality. For these folks, Mission Impossible and Simpsonesque farce cometo mind: "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make thisorganisation Number One in Excellence ..."

Nevertheless, executives are fascinated by platitudinous aphorisms.Legions of management consultants have figured this out. Moreover,getting in on the act is surprisingly simple. All you need to do is watchfor incipient buzzwords and use them before your competitors do. Forexample, to be really cool and up to speed on the latest in high platitudefashion, you need only to appreciate that "mission statement" is like ...so 20th century. Now, if you want to be seen or heard, you need a "Noblepurpose". No one takes mission statements seriously anymore, but a noblepurpose will positively have employees jumping for joy. Remember whereyou heard it first people—right here in this book. No royalty necessary foruse of this term, an acknowledgement will do.

The more popular things get, the more common place they become. Then,regardless of the original noble intentions behind them, they are overusedand ultimately depleted. Like a stock market rally, by the time everyone hascaught on, the smart money has moved on. Eventually, it becomes a ritual,something that has lost its original meaning rather than an action with apurpose. In short, the mission and vision statement is done because it is whatyou are supposed to do. After all, a document with a mission and a visionstatement is so much more ... "professional," right? So, not only will we doit, but we'll hire $5000 a day consultants to help us create one. After all, whobetter than a rank outsider to tell us what we're supposed to be doing?

Yes, this perverse logic is all too common. We'll venture an explanationfor this phenomenon in Chapter 3. For now, let's move on with ourdiscussion of platitudes.

Over the years we have developed finely honed radars for platitudes.One particularly easy way to spot them is via the "excellence test." In thefinal episode of series three of The Simpsons, the TV show, Homer wasrendered infertile due to years of radiation exposure. Fearing a lawsuit,the nuclear power plant created an award called the "OutstandingAchievement in the Field of Excellence" and awarded it to Homer. As faras platitudes go, this award is sheer genius and is the yardstick that we willbe using when rating organisational mission statements. Thus, from thevery beginning, the example below was doomed to fail:

"Our mission is to conduct all of our businesses, both energyand financial related, with four key values in mind: respect,integrity, communication and excellence. All business dealingsmust be conducted in an environment that is open and fair."

You see? As soon as the word excellence is there, we know that thereis trouble. This was allegedly the mission statement of a little companycalled Enron, (yeah ... that Enron!), whose scandalous downfall wasthe largest bankruptcy in American history at the time, taking out theaccounting and audit firm Arthur Andersen with it and being part of thereason for the Sarbanes Oxley regime currently operating in the USA.

Of course, our "excellence" platitude detection test lacks rigour becauseit misses out on an infinite number of platitudes that do not contain theword excellence. A better option is to follow the philosophy of RussellAckoff (1987). Ackoff believed that an organisation's or group's missionstatement must not state the obvious. The reason is simple: A missionstatement that merely restates the obvious does not say anything that istruly aspirational. To quote from Ackoff:

"They (groups and organisations) often formulate necessitiesas objectives: For example, `to achieve sufficient profit.' This islike a person saying his mission is to breathe sufficiently."

One of Ackoff's criteria to judge the quality of a mission statementis to see if the inverse of the statement makes logical sense. If you cannotreasonably disagree with this negative, then the original statement is aplatitude. Here are two examples:

"... our mission and values are to help people and businessesthroughout the world realize their full potential." (Microsoft2011)

So, our inverse here is working to hinder people and businesses torealise their full potential. Hmm, after the Windows Vista experience,some people would consider Microsoft's mission statement more of anoxymoron! The next statement is attributed to General Motors (King,Case and Premo 2010):

"... a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsibleoperations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and servicesof such quality that our customers will receive superior value whileour employees and business partners will share in our success andour stock-holders will receive a sustained superior return on theirinvestment."

So, the inverse of this is a socially irresponsible company that producesoverpriced goods of poor quality and treats employees, partners andshareholders like crap ... Speaking of the fast food industry, here is amission statement attributed to more than one player in that space:

"We will prepare and sell quick service food to fulfil ourguests' needs more accurately, quickly, courteously, and in acleaner environment than our competitors. We will conductall our business affairs ethically, and with the best employeesin the mid-south. We will continue to grow profitably andresponsibly, and provide career advancement opportunities forevery willing member of our organisation."

This is actually the best mission statement so far. The aspirations arevery clear and easily measurable. What about this?

"We are dedicated to ensuring a long-term commitment tostakeholder value from performance and improved returns atall levels."

That one was a trick assessment. We generated it from a website whereyou can generate your very own mission statement. It works like a pokermachine. Just pull the lever and within a few seconds, a random assortmentof small quotes are mashed together to create a mission statement. If youenter your company name into it, you can even print a certificate.

Finally for now, we wonder if you can guess whose organisationalmission this is:

"To produce high-quality, low cost, easy to use products thatincorporate high technology for the individual. We are provingthat high technology does not have to be intimidating fornon-computer experts."

The inverse implies that we produce low quality, high cost and hardto use products. But the second sentence redeems the statement because itis measurable. We like the notion of any mission statement starting with"we are proving" because for the next part of the sentence to make sense,it really has to be measurable. In case you didn't guess it, this is attributedto Apple in 1984. Given their market success with anything with thelowercase letter "i" in front of it, we have to concede that they really haveachieved that particular mission.

Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's true

In a paper entitled "Silenced by a Mission Statement: An Organisation'sCloak of Ambiguity," Gina Rathbun (2007) described her experiences ina company which had a ritual of chanting the company mission statementfrom a laminated card at the start of every monthly staff meeting. As youread Rathbun's quote below, try and keep in mind the characters fromthe "Mystery Men," all dressed up in their costumes, starting their day ofcrime-fighting in a similar manner.

"Before the meeting commenced, we were instructed to "takeout" our cards, which contained the vague metaphoricallanguage ... The mission statement's chant began:

We are an elite team of inter-dependent professionals, who areexperts at creating upscale living environments. We cultivatesituational awareness and act with professionalism and integrity.We are proud. We are a team."

Rathbun noted that the mission statement recited during thesemeetings said nothing of where the organisation was going. A little laterin the paper, she said:

"... Even the platitudes "elite" and "proud" ascribed a banalitythat didn't provide much direction toward describing any realbehaviour. Isn't any company that takes the time to formulateits values collectively, proud? What values exactly was thePresident endorsing?"

The point about the mission statement saying nothing about where theorganisation was headed actually points to the way to get past platitudes. Itmay come as a surprise to readers that trying to define them is not the way.

Definitions and bywords

One thing that we all tend to get suckered into doing at times is classifyingand defining the objects and ideas we work with. Granted, this is oftenunavoidable, especially in the world of academia where definitionsare needed in order to ensure that everyone understands what's beingdiscussed. Once you read a few papers however, you begin to notice apattern. Many papers, particularly in the social sciences, start out with aten page examination of all the past definitions of things that are beingexamined in the paper. This is followed by an equally tedious discussionof why those definitions are inadequate or incomplete, thereby pavingthe way for a new set of definitions. The remainder of the paper will bea detailed justification as to why the new, improved definitions are betterthan their predecessors.

Defining stuff is a time consuming and tiring exercise. Since we livein a world of constant change there will always be new influences whichshape and frame perceptions. Therefore, a definition that an authorlovingly spends so much effort on coming up with is always subject tobeing redefined by the next academic, blogger or marketing person whofollows a similar path. This cycle plays out in a few ways:

• The new definition becomes more verbose. There are a couple ofreasons for this:

* The definition is expanded to incorporate new aspects ofthe topic space. In an organisational setting, this createsconfusion because the definitions of multiple disciplinescan often seemingly contradict each other and thus, careful"wordsmithing" is required to navigate a path through it.

* New qualifications or exceptional situations have to beexcluded. This leads to more new terms being used in thedefinition.

• A broader, fundamental definition is developed. The broaderdefinition encompasses more and so is prone to platitudinousleanings. Further, such definitions also run the risk of beinginterpreted in ways other than the one intended by the author.

• A new word is used or an existing word is used in a new contextto try and convey the new meanings or concepts proposed by theauthor. If the author gets lucky, it catches on. The metamorphosisfrom "mission statement" to "noble purpose" is an example ofthis point.

While it might seem that we are arguing against definitions, be assuredwe aren't. What we wish to point out is that the tendency to "definitionise"has crept into organisational settings where it is wholly inappropriate.Bywords (and their definitions) are fertile ground for a dangerous kind ofplatitude which can doom projects before they even begin.

"How do you measure quality, then?"

A common characteristic of a platitude is that it has no meaning untilit is applied to a particular situation. Words in this category includequality, security, flexibility, innovation, effectiveness and Paul's personalfavourite, governance. These words have plenty written about them and,accordingly, have many definitions. The mistake is to try and lock down adefinition in an attempt to provide context to a situation or problem. Thiscreates a very sneaky and dangerous platitude; one that deludes peopleinto thinking that there is more shared understanding between peoplethan there actually is.