• For Merriam-Webster the word for 2018 was justice.

Their lexicographers said they chose the word because: “The concept of justice was at the center of many of our national debates in the past year: racial justice, social justice, criminal justice, economic justice.”

According to their announcement, justice was a top lookup throughout the year at Merriam-Webster.com, with the entry being consulted 74% more than in 2017.

• For Oxford Dictionaries, the WOTY was toxic, as in:

1. Toxic chemical
2. Toxic masculinity
3. Toxic substance
4. Toxic gas
5. Toxic environment
6. Toxic relationship
7. Toxic culture
8. Toxic waste
9. Toxic algae
10. Toxic air

Their rationale for choosing toxic? “The Oxford Word of the Year is a word or expression that is judged to reflect the ethos, mood, or preoccupations of the passing year, and have lasting potential as a term of cultural significance. In 2018, toxic added many strings to its poisoned bow becoming an intoxicating descriptor for the year’s most talked about topics. It is the sheer scope of its application, as found by our research, that made toxic the stand-out choice for the Word of the Year title.”

Their data showed a 45% rise in the number of times toxic was looked up on oxforddictionaries.com over the previous year. And the searches included in an array of contexts, both literal and metaphorical.

• For Dictionary.com, the 2018 word of the year was misinformation. 

As they saw it: “The rampant spread of misinformation poses new challenges for navigating life in 2018. As a dictionary, we believe understanding the concept is vital to identifying misinformation in the wild, and ultimately curbing its impact.”

Dictionary.com defines misinformation as “false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.” And in their announcement, they go on to say that, “The recent explosion of misinformation and the growing vocabulary we use to understand it have come up again and again in the work of our lexicographers.”

As noted above, the American Dialect Society will wait until their annual conference in February 2019 to make their choice, which allows for a retrospective look at the year just past. (Last year the Society’s pick was fake news.)

Is a single word a fair representation?

I suppose which word seems most appropriate to each of us depends on our personal perspective on the year, whether positive or negative, as well as the relationship we may have with the word over time, and the images it conjures up in our imagination.

If forced to choose among the three above, the word toxic certainly feels appropriate because of the constant negativity projected through news media. But I also like justice for its positive connotation.

The notion of finding a single word to define a year is preposterous, of course. In fact, to adequately describe the crucible of 2018 requires many words, often in conflict with one another, as in Dickens’ famous introduction to A Tale of Two Cities:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us …” 

Still, I’m intrigued by the very notion of distilling down the essence of a period of time into a single, definitive figure of speech because it does feel so wonderfully simple and uncomplicated. That’s something I think many of us seek in today’s overly complex existence.

So, again, if forced to choose, I’ll go for justice. How about you?

**************************

On a side note: Did you know that the color of the year for 2019 is coral? Or more accurately, “living coral” Pantone #16-1546.  Read what  Jennifer Ott has to say about that choice on Houzz.com.

In my opinion, it makes any series of parallel words or phrases joined by “and” easier to understand and far less confusing. But not everyone is as liberal as I am about using commas — serial or not. And sometimes that can affect the readability of a piece.

For example, there truly is a difference between how you read this classic example of three mis-matched guests at a party (with the Harvard comma after JFK)…

— We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.

… and how you read about the party’s two racy entertainers (minus the second comma).

— We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.

Another example from the Grammar Diva of a book dedication that’s less confusing with the addition of a single comma:

— I would like to thank my parents, Steve Martin and Jimmy Fallon. (Decidedly an odd couple!)

vs.

— I would like to thank my parents, Steve Martin, and Jimmy Fallon. 

Not having the extra comma typically means re-reading the sentence to get its true meaning. A minor annoyance, to be sure, but not much more.

“That comma would have sunk our ship”

For a company in Maine recently, the lack of a serial comma had more extreme consequences. It created an opportunity for the firm’s truck drivers to extract a $10 million settlement from company management.

Here’s how the grammarians at bigwords101.com described the Oakhurst case: 

A Maine company was faced with a class-action lawsuit requesting overtime pay for their truck drivers due to the interpretation of a written law. The drivers distribute perishable food items. Here is the sentence in question — indicating the activities to which overtime pay does NOT apply: 

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods.

The only thing the drivers do as part of their regular job is distribute.  If the comma separated that activity, the law would read, “The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution…” Aha! With the serial Harvard comma, distribution is a separate thing, and there is no overtime.

But when we leave the comma out (as it is in the official written law), the last item in the series can be read as “packing for shipment or distribution.” Clarified, this item would combine packing for shipment and packing for distribution as two separate packing activities. There is no overtime for packing, but they don’t pack; they distribute. So all is good and they receive overtime.

The final outcome of the case: The appeals court ruled that the missing comma raised enough uncertainty to take the side of the drivers. According to bigwords101.com:

That simple little Oxford comma would have made distribution a separate item in the series and disqualified the drivers from getting paid overtime for distribution, which is their job.

Or as one of the lawyers who represented the drivers so aptly put it: “That comma would have sunk our ship.”

So the serial/Oxford/Harvard comma finally had its day in court — and was recognized for its power to confuse (by its absence) or clarify (though its use). Not bad for a tiny punctuation mark!

James, a contributing editor at Inc.com, has written extensively on the neuroscience of word usage and perception. In his piece on Train Your Brain to Think More Clearly he says,

If you habitually use fuzzy, ill-defined words crammed into long and convoluted sentences, you’re training your brain–and the brains of your team members–to think less clearly. Confusion is also contagious.

That may explain why I left the meeting in a daze. (Actually, that only explains part of my confusion. The rest was due to a surfeit of political posturing and an absence of new ideas. But I digress …)

In an effort to remove some of the ill-effects from this encounter — and in the always-noble pursuit of clear language and thinking — I offer up some of the newest inductees into the corporate buzz speak “Hall of Shame” below — courtesy of theofficelife.com.

And, just for fun, if you should find your mind numbing to the drone of corporate jargon at a future meeting, try making it a “win-win” with this Buzz Speak Bingo Card.

Actionable [adj.]: Originally a legal word referring to anything that affords grounds for a lawsuit. In business speak, it’ s anything on which action can be taken.

Bifurcate [v.]: An overly complex word that HR uses when splitting your position into two separate jobs. Feel free to reapply for either of them.

Biome, Ecosystem, or Ecosphere: Environment or market. “We just can’t justify full-time hires in today’s regulatory biome.”

Boiling the ocean [v.]: Attempting to do something with too broad a scope. This is generally in reference to a project or initiative to avoid. “The client is living a pipe dream; when are they going to stop trying to boil the ocean?”

Cadence [n.]: A far too poetic way to describe how often a scheduled event is repeated. “If we just hit the right cadence on our sprint meetings…”

Circle-back [v.]: To revisit an issue. “I’m heading to lunch now, but let’s circle-back Friday am.”

Curate [v.]: Adds a whiff of sophistication to any mundane selection process. “As Chief Social Media Jedi, you’ll be deeply involved in curating our Pinterest identity.”

Deep dive [n.]:An in-depth study.

Deploy [v.] Execute; release to the public. Makes the speaker feel like he’s planning D-Day instead of some insipid PR launch.

Dialogue [v.]: To have a conversation; talk.  “Let’s dialogue later bout the Miller account.”

Drink from the fire hose [v.]: To be overwhelmed with information.

Drink the Kool-aid [v.]: To accept company policy without question. [An unfortunate reference to the Jim Jones mass suicide in Guyana.]

Drop-dead date [n.]: The REAL deadline. Missing it often means dire consequences.

Gatekeeper [n.]: A person who controls the flow of visitors and information to/from management. You should “do lunch” with this person.

Hard stop [n.]: The non-negotiable end of a meeting. Usually announced at the start. “Clients are visiting this afternoon so we have a hard stop at two.”

Ideation [n.]: An overused portmanteau of “idea” and “creation.” Psychologists have a legitimate use for this word. You probably don’t.

Lens [n.]: A point of view; a corporate microscope. “I want to make sure that we’re looking at this through the right lens.”

Level-set [v.]: To ensure that everyone is at the same ‘level’ of understanding. “You better level-set your team before you send them on-site.”

Leverage [v.]: To make use of a resource. (What’s wrong with “use”?)

Net-net [n.]: The verbally communicated summary of a lengthy event. “Just give me the net-net of your conversation with the client.”

Offline [adj.]: Used in business meetings to reference a more detailed discussion that won’t involve the whole group. “Let’s dialogue about these issues offline.”

Operationalize [v.]: To do. (Now was that so hard?)

Low-hanging fruit [n.]:Relatively simple problems that can be addressed with minimal effort.

Ping [n.]: To contact or notify. “Ping the boss about this one later.”

Put to bed [v.]: To conclude something. “We just need to put these last issues to bed.”

Pull up [v.]: Meet together later about an issue, just as a car pulls up alongside another car perhaps?

Rightsizing [v.]: A gentler way to refer to downsizing. Suggests that a round of layoffs is simply a labor surplus correction, rather than a symptom of deep financial problems.

Run it up the flagpole [exp.]: To find out what colleagues think of a new idea. This is roughly equivalent to the next entry – to “socialize” something.

Socialize [v.]: To facilitate group discussions about an issue. “Let’s give them time to socialize the new material with their teams.”

Speak to [v.]: To address. “Yield the floor, sir, and I will speak to your point!”

Swim lane [n.]: Field of responsibility. “Listen, client management just isn’t in my swim lane.”

Talk to [v.]: A self-important way of saying ‘talk about’. “I’m going to talk to the issues raised last week.”

Tasked [v.]: To be given an assignment. “I’ve been tasked with bringing coffee to the meeting.”

Value-add [exp.]: A typical biz speak reversal of ‘added value.’ “We have to evaluate the value-add of this activity before we drop any more money.”

Vision [n.]: The bold leadership direction that every manager claims, even if it changes every two weeks.

Win-win [n.]: A mutually beneficial arrangement for two parties. While the better negotiator is probably still at an advantage, both leave the table feeling great about it.

Thought it worth sharing with all of you. Enjoy!

Henry David Thoreau

This was a particularly difficult client because they were in the “institutional” investing marketplace. (And, no, that doesn’t mean their analysts were in mental hospitals or prisons — although a language survey some years ago uncovered that wonderful nugget! See my previous post: Are inmates managing your money?)

Of course it was understandable that they wanted to make sure their prospective clients knew they were experts in their discipline and members of an elite club of accomplished, knowledgeable financial analysts. So the jargon was code, as it is for attorneys and doctors, to demonstrate they had the required credentials.

Fortunately the web team I worked with was supportive of clear, concise language — in fact, they insisted on it. They also insisted that we talk in terms of “you” and use active verb forms to create strong connections with readers/site users. My marketing client was fully on board as well when I reminded her that good business and financial writing isn’t so much about telling your audience how smart you are, but instead, making THEM feel smart. (Thank you, Joseph Kimball, language guru par excellence!)

In any case, the site is up now and performing well. And even someone who isn’t “institutionalized” can understand it. Take a look!

The Project Aristotle team at Google took this question very seriously as it embarked on a two-year quest to discover the common traits of the company’s best teams. And their findings were unexpectedly “squishy”– especially for a company that thrives on hard data and number crunching.

The “secret sauce” that differentiated great teams from mediocre ones had nothing to do with the diversity of the team or expertise of its members. Instead, the teams that out-performed were those where everyone felt psychologically safe.

Here’s how Charles Duhigg reported on their findings in his recent New York Times piece:

What Project Aristotle has taught people within Google is that no one wants to put on a ‘‘work face’’ when they get to the office. No one wants to leave part of their personality and inner life at home. But to be fully present at work, to feel ‘‘psychologically safe,’’ we must know that we can be free enough, sometimes, to share the things that scare us without fear of recriminations. We must be able to talk about what is messy or sad, to have hard conversations with colleagues who are driving us crazy. We can’t be focused just on efficiency. Rather, when we start the morning by collaborating with a team of engineers and then send emails to our marketing colleagues and then jump on a conference call, we want to know that those people really hear us. We want to know that work is more than just labor.

His conclusion is worth repeating as well:

Project Aristotle is a reminder that when companies try to optimize everything, it’s sometimes easy to forget that success is often built on experiences — like emotional interactions and complicated conversations and discussions of who we want to be and how our teammates make us feel — that can’t really be optimized.

Good to remember the next time I’m leading a client team or volunteer committee. Making sure all participants have psychological safety — a chance to be themselves, to offer out-of-the-box ideas and solutions without fear of judgement — is vital to producing better results AND a happier experience.

Promise me you’ll always remember: 

You’re braver than you believe,

and stronger than you seem ,

and smarter than you think.

–A.A. Milne

[s]he gets up in the morning and

goes to bed at night and

in between does what [s]he wants to do.”

–Bob Dylan

One of the greatest of those adventures of course is trying to convince investment executives (and their legal reviewers!) that using strong, simple words that will engage, delight, educate, and motivate can actually increase engagement, save money, build their brand, AND increase sales.

That’s why I’m glad I joined the Plain Language Advocates group on LinkedIn earlier this year. The members always offer good food for thought and frequently unearth terrific research that supports the thesis that clear writing IS good for business.

They also bring some humor to the struggle. Like the Dilbert cartoon below, penned by Scott Adams in 1992 and recently resurrected by a Plain Language group member. It pretty much says it all.

Talk to you soon!