Does anybody else not really understand their own job?

[Imowningup]

I’ve been in a particular sector for 14 years. I know I’m good at delivering outcomes at operational level.

2 years ago I was promoted to strategic level and now I spend a lot of time talking in corporate jargon. It’s made me realise that I’ve just learnt what to say- I don’t really have in depth knowledge of it in the way I had real in depth knowledge when I was delivering at operational level.

I feel a bit of a fraud but I honestly think a lot of jargon is meaningless and will only be around until another buzz word replaces it. I feel like now I work less, get paid more and just parrot out jargon because it’s expected.

I should say that my line managers/anybody I’ve worked with at this level are all very happy and complimentary of my work- I just feel a bit of an imposter.

Does anybody else feel
like this or has experienced it?

But how can you make a difference if you don't even understand your job?

If your job was removed from the organisation tomorrow, would any of the service users be affected?

If not, then I really envy you. I have always wanted one of those jobs and I firmly believe they exist!

At the moment I’m spending time supporting school heads reach a particular outcome. The schools I’ve been supporting are now reporting increases in data. I’ve made a very positive difference.

What I do now is write reports/strategy/advise on policy etc this is where the jargon comes in. If I didn’t use the correct ‘buzz words’ at this level I don’t think I would have been approached for the job.

The definitely exist!

Put your job role into chat GPT / co-pilot etc and ask it what your job is!

But yes, I do know what my job is. Don’t you have goals / deliverables?

Look up the Peter Principle, OP.

It really irritated me! I was a teacher. Someone would stand in front of us and say something like “to move forward we need to strategically collaborate with stakeholders to achieve the desired outcomes, showing diversity, inclusiveness and optimisation of resources” Oh right. Let’s all do that then. That clears that one up.

@Bernadinetta I too am a big believer in the Peter principle. 😂

@pinkbackground : “to move forward we need to strategically collaborate with stakeholders to achieve the desired outcomes, showing diversity, inclusiveness and optimisation of resources” . I mean that is classic strategic buzzword bullshit, isn't it?

@IfNot :

The dictionary definition of strategy is a plan to meet long term objectives
"Ok, but in my organisation the programme director and project manager do that. So, the strategic objectives may be decided at the top, but after that it’s the programme team that plan and monitor that plan. So beyond the initial decision on what he strategic objectives are, Strategy really don’t DO anything."

Well, it may 'seem' that way. But ideally, it's supposed to run well. In big Corporate it's well set. Even in smaller companies, ideally principles should still apply.

The Board sets strategy. Oversees. A independent non-executive Director’s role is to challenge and scrutinise.
Corporate Level (Strategic Level) This is the highest level of strategy, where the* organization's overall direction is determined.
(Management Level) is supposed to Manage the implementation. *
Functional Level (Operational Level)
Day-to-Day Management: This level deals with the practical
implementation of strategies within different departments.
Why are Different Levels of Strategy Important?
Alignment: Different levels of strategy should work together to achieve the
organization's overall goals.

But strategy is supposed to be set. Then implemented.

Once strategy is decided, say by BOD (Board of Directors) their job is then to monitor, make sure it IS done. Not to do themselves. There has to be a segregation of duties. The whole point is that the decisions, eg strategy is then filtered down through the organisation. A manager is allocated the job of embedding it, actioning it. The BOD then checks it IS being done. The whole point of their job is not to do, but to supervise and check. Strategy are not supposed to do the doing. Else how can they be objective, step in and review the person who did the doing?

All groups develop their own jargon, corporate world is no different. It does sound lame and buzzword-y, but it is the words that are new and cliquey, the concepts are nothing new.

For strategy, say plan or blueprint for a goal

For deliverable, say task with a deadline or output

For actioning, say completing or doing.

Just sounds like your role now has moved from the "concrete task" phase to the "overall plan" stage - harder to see the value in the moment, but overall very important to keep everyone on track with what you're trying to achieve

This does sound like absolute corporate buzzword bingo. But its only complete nonsense if there is no plan behind it to back it up.

If, for example, this person quoted followed it up with a list of outcomes desired, the specific stakeholders who needed to be engaged by whom and for what, a d&I policy with policy for inclusion clearly stated and outline how they'd follow it - maybe they could meet it?

I think the OP has noticed there are a lot of people who coast by using buzzword and achieving little, as there are coasters at any level in an organisation. But the best managers and leaders are the ones who can implement their plans and filter down their goals through the organisation so everyone's working to the same target - whether or not they complete buzzword bingo!

I worked for about 4 years in a role where I had the barest understanding of the job. Id been transferred there from a role I understood and was good at but the management at this particular company liked to move people around and mix teams, team leaders, seating positions etc all the time. It was a massive company and so dis-jointed - we had to take calls from customers and we'd be googling on line for other departments numbers as our internal telephone lists/contacts were always going out of date! I spent the last four years doing the barest minimum, cherry picking the bits of work I could do and finding excuses not to do the more complicated stuff. I got away with it as I could get through lots of the easy stuff and my team leader didn't understand the work herself! It was mind-numbingly boring though and Id be fighting falling asleep at my desk for large parts of the day.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Where I work, it seems like once you get to a certain grade you start using corporate speak that doesn't bear much relation to what happens at the coalface. I find it intensely frustrating and often feel useless at work because I don't understand the higher level corporate conversations. I'm still good at my job but often have to translate what people are saying into plain English...

Oblomov I understand governance, truly I do. But in practice, where I work, the strategic side is top heavy and too many people running with their own career building agendas. The project teams report on the board, the board technically sign off on change and decisions but day to day they genuinely create more busy work for those lower down, just to be seen to be getting involved. I reckon you could sack 75% of them and things would move more quickly and be more effective. And yet they all think they are so very important.

Agree with this. We have some really great senior management. They have a vision of what they want to achieve, they are able to explain it to people in a way that engages them and makes them want to deliver it and they have enough of an idea about how it could work in practice that they can support lower management to put together a solid plan to get there and they understand how they can monitor progress effectively and when to step in vs when to leave their team to it. We also have some people in senior management who are a bit shit and just spout lots of meaningless jargon with some intangible targets and leave everyone below to it. They might get away with it if their team is really exceptional but long term it becomes obvious they are a bit shit and they get quietly managed out or moved to something super dead end.
Setting direction and then delivering goals through other people are a real skill set and when it’s done well it makes a massive difference.

Absolutely. If I left a training or info season with something I could actually use the he classroom to help the kids or myself then all good. However, too often I left a session with nothing but irritation at the overpaid, smug consultant who has just wasted my time using every piece of in trend jargon they could think of, without actually telling me anything at all.

@IfNot
ah. Then that's a slightly different issue. Working for cockwombles is a universal problem. 😉

I'm not even joking, if anyone has advice on how to get one of these kinds of jobs, I would love one.

I always seem to get the jobs where there are loads of physical deliverables, always on short deadlines. I've been doing it so long and I'm really struggling with it now.

So all and any advice on this would be really welcome

Thank you, and I hope you don't feel I'm hijacking your thread @Imowningup but if I start a thread on the subject, I will invariably be inundated with responses saying "those jobs don't exist"

I was on a board of governors for a school, the induction was poor. I had no idea what I was supposed to do. At first I asked questions/ requested training but I was made to feel silly for asking or my questions were ignored. A lot of the other governors worked in schools so were probably had better understanding . I attended the meetings, visited the school for a tour a couple of times a year which I wrote up and I attended any training offered. Half the time I didn’t understand the jargon they used although I picked some up along the way. . They seemed happy with me but I still have no clue what the point of it all was.