Some business academics just dont “get it” - do they?

A train journey yesterday gave me the chance to catch up on some background reading - or so I thought…

My choice of reading yesterday was a new publication from the ESRC titled “Britain in 2009”. The front cover looked enticing - in fact I mistakenly thought I was buying something by The Economist. However, the moment I started reading my first article, I knew it couldnt possibly have been published by The Economist.

I’m sure there will be something useful in there. But that first article reminded me why so many business “academics” have completely lost the plot when it comes to writing in a way that the informed business reader can understand.

The article? A brief 300-400 word piece titled “Learning Processes - Strategies for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises” [page 79].

The title sounded interesting. What followed was, in my view, total tripe.

A couple of examples…(remember - we’re talking about an article on strategies for the UK’s SME’s)

“Systems for learning are important in a firm’s development. But actual practices vary considerably so the adoption of best practice is not the key to success. Rather it is the ability to create the strategic space to lift managers’ attention towards a more distant horizon”.

It gets worse. After another paragraph of meaningless jargon, we learn that…

“learning within the firm can be much more effective if it is problem and learner-centred and incorporates business analysis tools, problem solving forums or soft process technologies to assist the process of engagement and dialogue between staff at all levels”.

Try communicating that tosh to a local BusinessLink or FSB meeting.