(and that vision is "happily pissed people with empty wallets")
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
150 points (96.9% liked)
LinkedinLunatics
3706 readers
114 users here now
A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I read The Dilbert Principle last month (only about thirty years behind the curve, I know) and it slates ~~purpose~~ ~~mission~~ vision statements even then.
In retrospect, it looks like Adams' edgy jokes and views didn't age well.
Just do you know, that guy lives in a mansion shaped like Dilbert's head which has a pool also shaped like Dilbert's head.
I suppose if the character made you a fortune, might as well lean in to it!
(He’s also the guy who thinks Trump is playing 4D chess and is a complete, unhinged moron).
Although his views may have changed in alignment with the arrival of his Dilbert mansion
That's the least of the problems with that guy.
Dilbert is still funny and spot on even if he turned it to be an asshole
Creating loyalty is not complicated it just requires everyone on board with the vision.
I think they a word there.
“Everyone on board” is slang for everyone agreeing to a way of thinking/doing. The sentence reads correct imo.
Eh, it should probably be "getting everyone on board," "everyone to get on board," or "everyone on board agreeing..." It's missing a verb. I understand it as-is, I just think it's ungrammatical.
It’s an elision which is common in many English dialects and totally out of place in others. A more common form of this that always feels incomplete to me is “needs washed,” but in both cases, “to be” is elided (omitted).
I've heard "needs washed" and also consider it ungrammatical, but I also understand it. So I might say something like "everyone on board" or "needs washed" in conversation, but I wouldn't do it in writing, especially more formal writing like this where someone is running a business and soliciting work.
While this is writing, it's not formal, it's a marketing ad directed less than savvy want to be entrepreneurs... It's meant to be sales speech.
Right, and a sales speech should be somewhat formal. It's not like an essay or legal appeal, but it should be a lot more formal than a discussion at a backyard BBQ or whatever.
I don't know. I think it gets the point that the writer is a marketing or sales idiot across quite clearly if the grammar is bad too.
It’s more accepted in different areas, but this doesn’t seem at all out of place to me. I’m curious if other examples would sound incorrect to you (no pressure if you’re not looking for an interview):
-
With his friends by his side, he felt safe
-
he needed his friends by his side to feel safe
-
she wasn’t comfortable with him at the wheel
-
She identified the person at the wheel before proceeding to the booking office and making her report.
-
He was unable to access all of the documents in the file.
Those all seem fine. The third is a little colloquial and I'd say "She wasn't comfortable with him driving" to make it clear what the issue was. But the rest don't really need a verb, for example:
- what his friends are doing isn't making him feel safe, their proximity is; if their actions were important, include the verb ("working," "focusing," etc)
- similar to 1
- implication is that he'd be an unsafe driver, but there could be other interpretations (e.g. if he's a child, maybe he'd break the steering column), but those are unlikely
- law generally cares who was in control, not necessarily who actually caused the accident; if the passenger jerks the wheel, that's on the defense to prove, prosecution just needs to know who was supposed to be in control to eliminate guilt for their client
- documents don't do anything, so they are assumed to be at rest
"Everyone on board" is using boats as an analogy, and it should be clear what the desired action is that needs to be taken (i.e. remain on board vs get on board). The verb there is pretty significant because it defines what action needs to be taken to get to the desired end state (everyone being on board). Most of the time, I hear, "we need to get everyone on board" instead of "we need everyone on board" because the action tells the listener what they should be doing.
Anyway, that's my take. In an informal setting (e.g. discussing over lunch or at someone's desk), use whatever. But in a more formal setting (soliciting business, presenting at a meeting, etc), I expect more precise language.
You can expect it all you like, but other dialects are going to dialect. I don’t personally see any difference between the example in the post and the examples I gave, possibly because I hear “be on board” as much as or more than “get on board” or “stay on board,” the same way I hear “be behind the wheel” more than “get behind the wheel” or any other variants. Thanks for the insight into a different dialect!
Yeah, no worries!
And it's not something I'd point out in person, I'm just pointing it out here in response to someone else. My SO is not a native speaker, and I work with non-native speakers, and I live in a different part of the country than I grew up, so I'm definitely used to different dialects.
A former boss used to make at least one person at every meeting recite the company's mission and vision statements--yes, two different statements, and if you missed even one word, no matter how inconsequential, he'd get on your ass about it in front of everyone. No surprise that he constantly listened to and quoted management podcasts and audio books, rarely questioning any of them.
I bet the turnover rate at that place was insanely high.
The company I work for asks us to do shit like this in our meetings. Like "what does mean to you"? I always want to be like "well I like the part where I get a check every couple weeks...."
Remember when visions were for introspection and self awareness? And not the cool aid of business propaganda?
Calls himself "inspiring teacher". Tooting his own horn, huh?