James Smith's vision

The more positive commentators on the chief executive’s vision [James Smith’s vision: Thomson Reuters 2.0] seem to me to be smoking the corporate reefer, drinking the corporate Kool-Aid or whatever, platitudes, bromides, vacuities and all. A good test for seeing if a statement means anything is by checking whether its opposite makes any meaningful sense. Let’s put Smith’s vision as reported by The Baron to the test.

“Putting customers first, delivering the solutions they need most and going to market as a unified enterprise.” The opposite: Putting customers last, delivering the solutions they need least and going to market as a fragmented enterprise. A business parody and no logical sense at all.

“Thomson Reuters 2.0 is about organic growth and being more customer-intimate; it is a larger market-share version of the company we have today, which we’ll create by being smarter about what it means to be part of an enterprise that does not operate in silos.” The opposite: Thomson Reuters 2.0 is about unorganic growth and being less customer-intimate; it is a smaller market-share version of the company we have today, which we’ll create by being dumber about what it means to be part of an enterprise that operates in silos. Again a business parody and no logical sense at all.

As for the silos, I had to run to the Internet on this one, and it was gratifying to find I was by no means alone in being baffled by this corporatese neologism. Among the better explanations: “The idea is that each department in an organisation - sales, design, manufacturing, customer service, order fulfillment, technical support, etc. - is an independent vertical structure that is self-contained and independent from the others. You work in your own silo, communicate with people inside the silo (there are no windows, so you don’t even see anyone else), and have as little contact as possible with people in other silos.”

OK then, all this tarted up jargon for Thomson Reuters 2.0 seems to be no more than the inherent meaning and logic of “Properly Run Business 101”. If Smith really wants us to understand what’s under way, let him abandon corporatese, use one of the approximately 6,600 extant languages still comprehensible to humankind, preferably plain spoken English unencumbered by jargon, and get back into the real world of exposition with examples and scenarios to illustrate the strategy.

If his vision is genuine and makes good sense, he’d be amazed how many now demoralised workers might then find themselves re-enthused. ■