Seminars, in a way, wasteful

Seminars, in a way, wasteful

JAKARTA (JP): President Soeharto recently appealed to
government officials to hold working conferences and seminars at
government premises rather than at hotels or convention centers.
It is a timely call and in line with the general imperative for
frugal government spending.

Frugality, in the use of hackneyed phrases, is another timely
homily.

Foreigners and diplomats often marvel at how the various
seminars, symposia and panel discussions in Jakarta can always
rely on pulling in crowds of 300 to 400 participants.
Particularly if the list of speakers comes to eight or ten for a
one-day meeting of three or four sessions. Does the audience
really intently listen to each speaker? Can they actually digest
each speaker's presentation? Do they really have the stamina and
attention span of 60 to 90 minutes per session?

Psychologists remind us that the average attention span of an
audience is no more than 15 minutes, assuming a speaker gives a
lively presentation. Substance really doesn't matter in these
seminars, even if the topic is the tortuously important subject
of the latest government deregulation package or tax structure.
What matters most is that the audience hears the latest buzzwords
or the most recent rehashed management or bureaucratic phrases
spewed by the designated speaker.

Most hilarious are the business and management seminars,
usually conducted in a hotel ballroom. Hardly a session passes by
without the most recent buzzword from the latest management
bestseller being mentioned. Phrases such as "re-engineering the
corporation", "benchmarking", "learning organization", "core
competencies", "creative chaos" are now rampantly in vogue. I
marvel at how American and European management gurus continually
supply management freaks with a never-ending glossary of the
latest hip thing to say.

My own skepticism leads me to minimize the use of these
management and bureaucratic buzzwords, especially in this age of
cyberspace dominated by the post-MTV generation. One can be sure,
for example, that if someone says it's time for another round of
"brainstorming", Indonesians will do more "storming" than
"braining". Or if anyone boasts that they now work in a "think-
tank" you can bet than the institution does more "tank"ing than
"thinking". And if a manager enthuses about the virtues of
"networking" you can be sure he or she enjoys "netting" more than
"working".

And so it goes. One who boasts of thriving on dealing with
crisis situations often does more "damage" than "control". Busy-
body executives do more "benching" than "marking" in their little
cubicles. Subordinates neither "learn" nor "organize". In-house
experts neither have "core" nor "competency". Instant converts to
"just-in-time" inventory invariably fall back on late delivery.
"Synergists" all too often are listless killjoys.

Of late, in deference to the rising influence of feminism, the
thing to utter is "human resource development". The word
"management" may in time be replaced by the less sexist
"personagement" or, where appropriate, with "womanagement". But
that would be too much of a tongue twister. And it would have the
disadvantage of adding yet another of those sophisticated
sounding but irritating buzzwords to the management lexicon.

-- Juwono Sudarsono