deja wrote:It's not the ideas that are at issue but their presentation. When people use jargon in such a thick fashion, they often want to hide something. In this case, the ideas being presented are not all that new and very simple to grasp. The executive summary as well as yours (which is much better) really isn't saying much. Simply put:
Holacracy is this new idea that allows everyone to participate, when appropriate, in order to improve our lives now and in the future...
When you include – "appropriate people at a particular scope" – into your formulation you've just invoked elitism, which is necessary in my book. For example, I rely on physicians and mechanics for services in which I have little expertise. When it comes to fixing my body or my car, they're the ones making and executing the rules not me.
In my line of work, jargon is used in epidemic proportions. Everyone is trying to say something new when they really have nothing new to say. As far as institutionalizing change, which is what you're talking about, again nothing new here. It's sort of like trying to contain the 'flow' in the flow of water.
I know this comes off as very grumpy and cynical but it's not intended that way. There are some new and exciting ideas and some not-so-new but exciting ideas out there, and Holacracy may be one of the them. They just don't need to be dressed up in such cumbersome language.
Ok, so how much jargon did I end up using here?
I don't think you are grumpy, and I do sympathize with your feelings towards jargon. I work with people who talk in acronyms and if you ask them what that means, they never really know. Yes, a lot of Holacracy is presented in heavy jargon, I try to not do that and try to provide simpler alternatives when I am able. But language is an important part of understanding and doing. If we restricted language to pointing and grunting, we would not be where we are today. There are times when a new word is needed to speed up and better convey communication. And, yes, some people just love to push that to the extreme. I do personally like a simpler approach and believe that it is harder to communicate with the majority if you unnecessarily use complicated language.
The deep jargon in the summary is an attempt to describe what you can only really know by experiencing it. You can teach anyone the rules of Go, but try to describe what you feel after playing 10 years. How would you market that experience?
