Infernal Comms

When we is for weasels: a Raoul Moat story

There are times when either your message or your audience's state of mind is not what you would want it to be. Perhaps you're announcing job cuts or apologising for a mistake. In an extreme case you might be attempting to build a dialogue with someone who has threatened to kill your employees, as Detective Chief Superintendent Neil Adamson had to do in the recent case of alleged murderer Raoul Moat.

DCS Adamson made a personal appeal to Moat towards the end of the manhunt, and he did that with repeated use of the word "I": "I can assure you," he said. "I'd like you to know ...".

When you want people to listen to you and believe what you are saying, there is no place for the weasel "we". 

Taking personal responsibility for what you are saying and doing helps your audience pay attention to you and your message. They may not like it, but they're listening.

Using a phrase like "we've done what we can to minimise the impact on staff" only sends a signal that you are diffusing responsibility for what's happening so that no-one gets the blame.

Use the mighty "I" and you will at least be seen as a leader. It's not easy, but then it's not meant to be.

Redundancy does more than "affect staff"

I read earlier today about the sudden redundancies that have been announced at Budelpack COSi, a company based in Maesteg, Wales. The administrators (Grant Thornton) are in, and the job losses appear to be unavoidable. It's tough for these people, and there were tears.

Here's what the Grant Thornton rep said:

"We are working closely with workers' representatives and a number of public agencies to ensure that everything is done to support the affected staff at this difficult time."

It's a great example of how dumb-speak has taken over from human communication. It has the unmistakeable dull clank of the committee-scripted announcement. I have a particular problem with "affected staff"; it's the way you would refer to people who have been mildly inconvenienced by a change in the car parking arrangements.

When talking about redundancies, let's not try and mask the unpleasantness of what's being talked about by using neutered language. Rather than "affected staff", I'd like to hear about "the men and women who have lost their jobs today": it's truthful, strong, and more respectful.