Inanimate objects with "Empower"

[Rainmaker]

I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.

But I find quite a few examples on the net like "empower the
decision-making", "empower the company/the organisation/the project" etc. on
pages that are otherwise well-written and with no apparent
sloppiness in the handling of the language.

What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.

Is the pondedness an issue with this, perhaps?

BR Rainmaker

[Ross Howard]

The problem with empower why anybody would want to use it. Like
proactive and strategy, its usually meaningless as used in corporate
contexts. How can you empower decision-making? You can empower
decision-makers, but only by the shareholders passing a resolution to
delegate their powers to directors or other executives. If that's not
what is meant, best find another word (boost, bolster, consolidate,
strengthen, support... anything but embloodypower).

--
Ross Howard

[Don Phillipson]

"Rainmaker" <rain...@1234.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:khpjil$ik9$1...@news.albasani.net...

> What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
> with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.

Prior examples seem helpful. Flight by (inanimate) aircraft
became practical only when appropriate engines (power)
were added to the Wright Brothers' early gliders. The
inadequate two-engined Avro Manchester bomber was
transformed into the effective Lancaster by adding two
more engines, viz. by adding power to an inanimate object.
Q: Do we usually use "empower" for this context?
A: Never.

"Good English style" is judged in various contexts.
One is normal usage (cf. above.) The other is current
fashion, in this case the Black Power movement in the
USA in the 1960s, which prompted movements in many
other countries for Women's Power, Gay Power and
other good causes. This historical basis of current
fashions supports "empower" as appropriate for unorganized
groups of people but not so much for organizations, but
not invariably. When police powers are increased, we may
say the police have been empowered to do something new.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:14:44 +0100, Rainmaker <rain...@1234.nospam.com>
wrote:

>

>I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
>used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.
>
>But I find quite a few examples on the net like "empower the
>decision-making", "empower the company/the organisation/the project" etc. on
>pages that are otherwise well-written and with no apparent
>sloppiness in the handling of the language.
>
>What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
>with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.

What does it mean, to "empower decision making"?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Paul Wolff]

In message <flu0k8h601h3859q6...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes

>On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:14:44 +0100, Rainmaker <rain...@1234.nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
>>used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.
>>
>>But I find quite a few examples on the net like "empower the
>>decision-making", "empower the company/the organisation/the project" etc. on
>>pages that are otherwise well-written and with no apparent
>>sloppiness in the handling of the language.
>>
>>What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
>>with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.
>
>What does it mean, to "empower decision making"?

To give the CEO a Powerpoint set for Christmas.
--
Paul

[Peter Moylan]

This is what we call management-speak, and it's used by people who want
to pad out their writing with lots of words without actually saying
anything.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[John Briggs]

On 14/03/2013 05:25, Lewis wrote:
> In message <khpjil$ik9$1...@news.albasani.net>

> Rainmaker <rain...@1234.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
>> used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.
>

> How old is this native?

>
>> What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
>> with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.
>

> No, it's buzzword-speech/corporate-speech, and while that sort of
> terrible writing has its own vocabulary and rules and sometimes one is
> forced to use it, it is never good style.
>
> I would avoid 'empower' as much as possible, much as I would stay on the
> far side of 'paradigm' or 'facilitate'.

But you can often express more with 'paradigm' than you can with 'exemplar'.
--
John Briggs

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <5140fc1c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

>
> On 13/03/13 21:14, Rainmaker wrote:
> >
> > I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
> > used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.
> >
> > But I find quite a few examples on the net like "empower the
> > decision-making", "empower the company/the organisation/the project"
> > etc. on
> > pages that are otherwise well-written and with no apparent
> > sloppiness in the handling of the language.
> >
> > What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
> > with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.
> >
> > Is the pondedness an issue with this, perhaps?
>
> This is what we call management-speak, and it's used by people who want
> to pad out their writing with lots of words without actually saying
> anything.

Yes.

In other words, waffle.

--
Sam

[Rainmaker]

Lewis wrote:
> In message <khpjil$ik9$1...@news.albasani.net>
> Rainmaker <rain...@1234.nospam.com> wrote:
>

>> I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
>> used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.
>

> How old is this native?
>

>> What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
>> with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.
>

> No, it's buzzword-speech/corporate-speech, and while that sort of
> terrible writing has its own vocabulary and rules and sometimes one is
> forced to use it, it is never good style.
>
> I would avoid 'empower' as much as possible, much as I would stay on the
> far side of 'paradigm' or 'facilitate'.

Thanks Lewis and others for your answers.

I realise it is corporate/management/nonsense-speak, and I agree
that kind of vocabulary is mostly meaningless babbling which it
is best to avoid altogether if you can.

I suppose I didn't phrase my question clearly enough. Let's have
another go:

In a context where you are actually expected to use this type of
buzzword-ridden corporate-speak and avoiding such expressions
is not an option - would you avoid "to empower our projects/our
company etc." MORE than you would avoid "to empower people"?
- or are the two equally objectionable with no significant
difference in irritation level?

tnx, Rainmaker

[Robert Bannister]

I thought you were only allowed to empower women.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/03/13 05:10, Rainmaker wrote:

> In a context where you are actually expected to use this type of
> buzzword-ridden corporate-speak and avoiding such expressions
> is not an option - would you avoid "to empower our projects/our
> company etc." MORE than you would avoid "to empower people"?
> - or are the two equally objectionable with no significant
> difference in irritation level?

In a corporate environment, the only meaningful way to empower people is
to promote them to more senior positions.

True, in management-speak it's common to talk of empowering someone
without actually giving them any power; but even in that case you still
try to fool them into thinking that they're getting more power.

It wouldn't be easy to do either of those things for a project.

[Mike L]

When I moved into my last place I had to get in touch with the
electricity company. The meter was labelled "West Midlands Electricity
Board" or something like that. I couldn't find it in the 'phone book,
but I asked somebody in an electricity concern that _was_ mentioned:
she helpfully told me the privatised name was now "Empower". "Typical
stupid modern name, pshaw!" But frustration grew as I found that
wasn't in the directory, either. A calming pause followed, during
which I was inspired to meditate on British speech habits, and
reflected that Gloucestershire had a nuclear power station in the
Belvoir country. A wild conjecture rewarded me with the real name:
"Npower".

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

Great story, though it must have been frustrating at the time.

--
Robert Bannister

[Mike L]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:23:40 +0800, Robert Bannister

It really was frustrating; but there was a sense of achievement among
the annoyance when I found I'd cracked the code.

--
Mike.

[Tom P]

On 03/13/2013 11:22 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/03/13 21:14, Rainmaker wrote:
>>
>> I have been told by a native (UK) speaker that "Empower" can only be
>> used about people but not about things, such as companies, projects etc.
>>
>> But I find quite a few examples on the net like "empower the
>> decision-making", "empower the company/the organisation/the project"
>> etc. on
>> pages that are otherwise well-written and with no apparent
>> sloppiness in the handling of the language.
>>
>> What do you think? Is it good English style to use inanimate objects
>> with "empower", such as organisation, company etc.
>>
>> Is the pondedness an issue with this, perhaps?
>
> This is what we call management-speak, and it's used by people who want
> to pad out their writing with lots of words without actually saying
> anything.
>

It's something you become acutely aware of when you try to translate it.

[Robert Bannister]

A friend of mine who is a "facilitator" gave me a fairly long document
to translate into German. To begin with I tried really hard to find a
good equivalent for all these weasel words, but then I found some of
them were being used used with different meanings and yet the whole
point was to have the same word. In the end, I gave up and handed her a
translation worthy of a computer program.

--
Robert Bannister

[Mike L]

WIWAL, that kind of appreciation was said to be one of the benefits of
all the translations from one language to another we had to do. The
authorities weren't wrong.

--
Mike.