Lies, Damn Lies -- and CEO Statements

Zoltan Kovacs reviewed a book on the misuse of English. Sure, there's a lot of waffle used but often enough it's just the language of that particular social or work group. The multi-paragraph example that he gave made -- to me -- a lot of sense. If you know the words, the meaning is clear... Though I'll admit, it could have been said more concisely.

What I do not like, is simple language which is a simple lie.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

English grows. It changes. Some bits die, new words and phrases are introduced. Would you trust a doctor who told you, "You're a bit crook"? No -- you would prefer a diagnosis in the language of doctors... You would hear the jargon, gain faith in the doctor's expertise then -- if you were really interested -- ask for a clearer explanation.

That's the way that all "professional" areas work: they have their own language, it makes sense to them. If you deal with them, you hope that they are able to translate into your own particular jargon.

Then you have the "professionals" who use everyday English -- but they are lying. Or deluded. Or just plain confused.

Take, for example, Peter Flett.

Flett was the boss of Health in WA, after the last bloke was kicked out for dodgy practices. Now Flett has resigned, "because," he says in an interview in The Sunday Times (20 Dec 2009), "clearly communications between the Health Department and Treasury had broken down." As one person commented (it may have been the president of the AMA), it's a bit weak to quit as soon things get a bit tough.

Still...

What else is wrong with this Flett person?

It's only a short article. How many mistakes can we find, in this one, short article?

1. "It became obvious to me it was time to move on because clearly communications between the Health Department and Treasury had broken down." Communication is a two-way street. Is Flett so incompetent that he is unable to deal with difficult people?
   
2. Is his real boss -- the minister for health -- so incompetent that he cannot defend his own health CEO? Or does Flett believe that he -- Flett -- is the be-all and end-all of Health... reporting to no-one but willing to give up if a different department gives criticism.
   
3. "I learnt the necessity of hard work to get results." He apparently also learnt to give up in the face of opposition.
   
4. "Dr Flett said he came out of retirement to become the Health Department boss." Is this just poor phrasing -- or understanding -- by the reporter? The next paragraph provides a different story: "I was contemplating retirement..." So was he working through his retirement? Or confusing an inadequate reporter? Or just spouting a load of bull...
   
5. "I came into this job because of my experience with managing people." Remember this claim while reading Flett's view on the "Four Hour Rule".
   
6. "When I took this job I took it with some particular things that I thought needed to be done." Actually, I heard him on TV from his first days in the job. He spouted the standard motherhood statements, about emergency waiting times, aboriginal health, the usual problems. No solutions, just the standard list of problems. Whoopee-do.
   
7. "That's why I initiated the Four Hour Rule." That's the one that tells doctors, you will get patients out of the Emergency Department within four hours of their arrival. How do they do that? There are no suggestions, no extra resources, no hints... Just an order: Do it. This from the man with "experience with managing people"!
   
8. So... How do doctors manage within the Four Hour Rule? Well... Patients are stopped from entering Emergency -- you've heard of ambulance ramping? And patients who manage to get in are dumped out the other end -- asap. Have you heard of the Acute Assessment Unit? Too sick to go home, nothing we can do with them -- get them out of ED and dump them in AAU. Less time in Emergency -- more time in other areas. Oh, great.
   
9. "I also initiated ... a major screening program of Aboriginal communities... We're doing it within the health budget. Not with extra funds." Let's just look at that lying logic... Within the health budget. You have a $100 budget for a barbecue. You decide to spend $99 on beer -- within the barbecue budget. You use no extra funds... except that you now have only $1 left for meat. Yes, you have paid for an extra service -- beer -- "within budget". But the rest of the barbecue is buggered. So other areas carry the pain but you get popular for providing ... beer.

So we have misleading statements. Absolute bulldust. And lies. This is the style of the ex-CEO of Health. Oh my.

I don't care about specialist jargon and incomprehensible verbiage. If only we could hear straight talk and the truth.

I wish.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com