Cognitive Dissonance

Sometimes I get to see academic concepts mangled to new corporate meanings.

I first became aware of an oddity within the meaning of specific information as it relates to social context when I was still a grad student. There was one particular undergrad Sociology course, Social Stratification, which was required of not only Sociology majors, but of Marketing majors as well. This course, which was designed to delineate the differences in social class and prestige within society, examine its causes, problems, along with possible solutions, was being used by those individuals who wished to have this information in order to sell people stuff.

This, of course, horrified many within the Sociology department, however I find this a particularly revealing distinction regarding the divide between those who wish to “learn” for a living, and those who are thinking within a pragmatic “real world” framework (It need not be said that those different perspective suggest an entirely different political orientation). This type of thing happens again and again; ideas and concepts that were originally meant to be studied as a way of understanding (at least perceived) injustices being used by those who wish to make use of these inequalities.

One of the more amusing/disturbing things that happens in the corporate environment is that occasionally phrases or expressions which come from the academic world are mangled for corporate use.

Here are a couple:

"Paradigm Shift" – this phrase has been mainly associated with twentieth century philosophy of science (see Thomas Kuhn’s, Stucture of Scientific Revolutions). It refers to large changes in ways of thinking about what determines reality. For example, the shift between beliefs between theological origination toward evolution would be an example of a paradigm shift. In the corporate world, however, the phrase has been expanded to include any change of management, or re-organization. It gets bandied around so often that it has lost its original meaning.

“Meritocracy” – this word is a sociological concept about a hierarchical structure of society wherein power and prestige are determined by individual achievements, rather than by such things such as being born into a specific social class. When used in the corporate world, it usually is meant as an explanation for why those in higher ranks make more money or have more power. Conversely, if you do not make much or have no power, it suggests that it is because you do not deserve it, unlike those who are doing much better.

The pervasiveness of this type of contradiction of original meanings and corporate mangling produces in me something akin to cognitive dissonance; humor is a healthy response. Rage... less healthy.

This general approach of creating wordy ways of dealing with abstract (and often meaningless) concepts is fairly pervasive. One clear sign that this might be a problem at a specific company is an excess of "Mission Statements" and/or "Vision Statements." These are designed to create a concise summary to define the goals of a specific division or unit of the organization as it applies to everyone within that sub-area. Not surprisingly, these end up being vapid and with about as much content as a presidential candidate's stump speech.... full of catchphrases, and to paraphrase Shakespeare, like "a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

When I started at this company I found that I had no less than 5 mission statements; one for each level of the organization in which I reside. Once I was asked by a manager to provide (I kid you not), my "personal interpretation of our division's Vision statement."

I replied with something to the effect of "I will endeavor to proactively operationalize my workflow vis-a-vis the utilization of a face-to-face initiative in order to more effectively establish organizational efficiency.." etc.

It was accepted.