By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"Listen, let's be very clear about this, you are each a valued stakeholder in this breakfast and we will be relentless until you achieve the elite cereal you deserve."
8
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 11:12 - Mar 18 with 1937 views
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 12:04 - Mar 18 by Marshalls_Mullet
Its such a corporate word, I try to avoid using it where possible.
I dislike it for two reasons. It seems to me that words used in public relations have two principal functions. One is to convey meaning, and one is to convey an image of the person saying it (the latter can sometimes obfuscate the former, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).
In terms of conveying meaning, "stakeholders" just means anyone that has an interest in the decisions being made and processes being followed. It is intentionally obfuscatory in that it deliberately conflates (a) those who have an actual direct ownership stake, and (b) those who have some more nebulous interest.
In terms of conveying image, "stakeholders" conveys the idea that the speaker cares about everyone who could conceivably have an interest in the subject. It's good to care about everyone. However, in being so vaguely inclusive, the speaker can give very little confidence to the listener that the speaker cares about any specific group the right amount (or the amount that the listener thinks they should).
For example, if the head of a football club is talking about taking stakeholder opinion into account, whose opinion matters? Fans, TV broadcasters, sponsors, owners, regulatory bodies, landlords, local authorities, the local community?
Vague is not great, woolly is not great, but intentionally so is worse.
I do accept, however, that the job of a leader is to create an impression that we're all in this together and we need to row in the same direction, and that is sometimes served by pretending that everyone's interests are aligned, even when they might not be. That can create a lack of dissent, or proper checks and balances.
See also: making oneself Chairman in addition to Chief Executive.
I'm by no means anti-Ashton. He's done a good job, and everyone in a big job has strengths and weaknesses. But I dislike hypercorrective corporate speak, and I dislike a lack of checks and balances in any institution.
3
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 12:17 - Mar 18 with 1551 views
And as he steps out of the house and speaks to reporters - 'I'm so proud of the group, but we will be relentless and leave no stone unturned to keep improving and adding to it it we can.'
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 12:16 - Mar 18 by HighgateBlue
I dislike it for two reasons. It seems to me that words used in public relations have two principal functions. One is to convey meaning, and one is to convey an image of the person saying it (the latter can sometimes obfuscate the former, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).
In terms of conveying meaning, "stakeholders" just means anyone that has an interest in the decisions being made and processes being followed. It is intentionally obfuscatory in that it deliberately conflates (a) those who have an actual direct ownership stake, and (b) those who have some more nebulous interest.
In terms of conveying image, "stakeholders" conveys the idea that the speaker cares about everyone who could conceivably have an interest in the subject. It's good to care about everyone. However, in being so vaguely inclusive, the speaker can give very little confidence to the listener that the speaker cares about any specific group the right amount (or the amount that the listener thinks they should).
For example, if the head of a football club is talking about taking stakeholder opinion into account, whose opinion matters? Fans, TV broadcasters, sponsors, owners, regulatory bodies, landlords, local authorities, the local community?
Vague is not great, woolly is not great, but intentionally so is worse.
I do accept, however, that the job of a leader is to create an impression that we're all in this together and we need to row in the same direction, and that is sometimes served by pretending that everyone's interests are aligned, even when they might not be. That can create a lack of dissent, or proper checks and balances.
See also: making oneself Chairman in addition to Chief Executive.
I'm by no means anti-Ashton. He's done a good job, and everyone in a big job has strengths and weaknesses. But I dislike hypercorrective corporate speak, and I dislike a lack of checks and balances in any institution.
Surely "checks and balances" is corporate speak? Not to mention "rowing in the same direction"?!
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 11:16 - Mar 18 by farkenhell
"I know that you, egg, will strive to be the best version of yourself."
"I've said it many, many times before, but it never ceases to amaze me how this toast always comes together whenever I need it."
"I have broken through the egg shell and that’s really important because that gives us far better access and egress into the yolk. Allowing my toasted soldiers to become the best version of themselves".
“What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it........."
IMO people get far too wound up about this. It's been commonplace parlance in the business world for decades (yes, 25 years ago and beyond).
What has changed is the Internet, and more people getting directly exposed to it. In the past, much of this nomenclature will have been filtered as it passes through multiple tiers of communication, and the language used modified / morphed from what was said at source. Now everyone has easy and instant access to the source, and it becomes unfiltered.
4
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 13:05 - Mar 18 with 1344 views
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 14:40 - Mar 18 by RegencyBlue
I don’t like corporate speak much personally but the amount of stick Ashton gets about it is ridiculous!
Look at what has been achieved since he got here and compare it to what was happening, or rather not happening, under Evans.
I know what I prefer!
I think people are just having a bit of a laugh here......... We all know what he has done to turn this football club around. No stone has been left unturned.
2
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 15:05 - Mar 18 with 1013 views
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 14:54 - Mar 18 by BseaBlue
I think people are just having a bit of a laugh here......... We all know what he has done to turn this football club around. No stone has been left unturned.
Relentless!
1
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 15:14 - Mar 18 with 990 views
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 15:05 - Mar 18 by farkenhell
Relentless!
Not only has MS left no stone unturned but the very ecosystem of the club has improved as well.
He has created a community of living organic components with all of its interconnected matter interacting perfectly within the environment of this football club. Creating systems and energy that breaths oxygen within the said ecosystem.
[Post edited 18 Mar 16:23]
2
Do you reckon Ashton says 'stakeholders' at the breakfast table? on 15:17 - Mar 18 with 981 views
I scoff at the idea that Ashton eats breakfast, he mainlines cuggin Oil over night and grabs a mega thermos of the stuff for the day ahead on his way out. Thats it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
