08th June 2010 | Posted in Organisational Development

The Queen’s English Society announced this week that it was to set up an ‘Academy of English’ in order to regulate the use of the fastest-growing language in the world.  This is probably well-intentioned but daft and hopefully doomed to failure for some the reasons set out by Professor John Mullan in the Guardian.

The English language works so well for it’s estimated 1.5 billion users because it is dynamic.  Countries, generations, organisations and even families seize the language and make it their own through adopting unique tones, rhythms and usages.  For those of us working in communications (and which manager isn’t?) this flexibility is both opportunity and threat.  The threat is amply demonstrated by BP’s hapless Tony Hayward right now. Speaking like an Englishman to Americans he has perfectly proved George Bernard Shaw’s observation that the two nations are divided by the use of a common language.  However much we might understand his intended communication from this side of the Atlantic, his self-deprecatory style might contribute to the US press hearing our alternatives in brackets:

“This was not our accident … This was Transocean’s rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment.” (Don’t blame me)

“The Gulf of Mexico is a big ocean. The amount of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.” (It isn’t that big a deal)

“No one wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back.” (I’ve forgotten the eleven people that died)

“So far I’m unscathed … Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” (I don’t care anyway)

While BP will solve the problem by handing the operation over to an American most of us don’t get that choice when struggling to make ourselves understood – particularly at the times of stress which we all endure through conflict and/or change.

Where the opportunity exists in the ambiguity of language may be difficult for Tony Hayward to appreciate at the moment but is exactly where the misguided search for certainty of @TheHRD and others get it wrong.  Whilst we appreciate the humour behind the HRD’s rant, the bureaucratic tendencies in all organisations which seek rules before freedom are the antithesis of success, not it’s defining characteristic.  Every dress code that we’ve ever seen for an office environment is breached and no organisation that we’ve ever worked with has the stomach to rigorously police it, mostly because, deep down, they recognise that it isn’t such a big deal anyway.  In more important communications than dress code, the ability to interpret and clarify, listen deeply, contextualize and reframe all depend on the subtleties of the language in matching the right words to the right person at the right time and supporting those words with the actions that make them truly understood.

Nothing that the Queen’s English Society could do will save Tony Hayward from being misunderstood or any corporate dress code enthusiastically adopted.  And that is a good thing.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 at 10:47 am and is filed under Organisational Development. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.