There are many words which are widely used but which can have different meanings for different people. Take, for example, the word ‘entrepreneurship’. Some people want there to be a condition which leads people to start businesses, especially high-growth ones, and, because other people appear to call that entrepreneurship, they believe that condition exists and use that label for it, writes Prof Simon Bridge.
Consequently, the use of that term has become common in economic policy circles – possibly because it is a fashionable word which could convey the impression that its user is well-informed and familiar with the components that facilitate economic development.
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
(Lewis Carroll, Alice Through the Looking Glass)
However others think entrepreneurship is about being entrepreneurial (ie enterprising) in any activity, not just business. But, despite this difference, both interpretations have been used in government pronouncements:
For instance, in 2003 the Northern Ireland government’s Entrepreneurship and Education Action Plan indicated that entrepreneurship was considered to be ‘the ability of an individual, possessing a range of essential skills and attributes, to make a unique, innovative and creative contribution in the world of work, whether in employment or self-employment’.
However in its 2008-2011 corporate plan, Invest NI declared that its Accelerating Entrepreneurship Strategy, which it had launched in 2003, would ‘increasingly emphasise the acceleration of high-potential existing and start-up companies … (to) provide the supply line for future exports based on new product and process innovation’.
So does entrepreneurship refer to the condition leading specifically to business start-up or does it have a much wider application referring instead to being enterprising in any situation? Unfortunately there is no clear agreement and there are many examples of both uses. So it is an example of a word which is often used because it looks good but which fails to convey a clear unambiguous message and so can easily be misunderstood.
Another example is ‘failure’
Another example is ‘failure’. We use that term to refer to the result when something goes wrong, although with due prior thought that should have been expected – such as being hit by a car when crossing a busy road without first looking both ways. But we also use ‘failure’ to refer to something new not working when trying it is only way to test it. Finding that it doesn’t work then is actually a successful experiment.
Therefore the first sort of failure is blameworthy and we should avoid it, whereas the second is the right way to proceed. But because they are both called ‘failure’ we overlook the difference and either castigate all ‘failures’ or go to the other extreme and imply that all ‘failures’ are to be welcomed as the correct way to proceed. So, when we hear or read the word ‘failure’, which use should we understand?
If communication is to be effective the words used must be understood in the same way by both the sender and the receiver – but it might be surprising how often that is not the case. Obviously, when dealing with someone who speaks a different language, some interpretation will be necessary – because just translating the words may not be enough. Suppose you make a proposition and the answer is translated as ‘may be” – you might think you have made a start towards reaching an agreement. But suppose instead an interpreter says that, while the answer could be translated as “may be”, it is actually as negative an answer as it is considered polite to give to someone without causing offence – that would suggest a different conclusion.
But it is not just with obvious examples or different languages that misunderstanding can arise. It is natural that groups of people who work together will, over time, use words in particular ways to suit their purposes. I remember an example from about 30 years ago when Stormont, then under direct rule, had introduced a policy, with a supporting budget, for what was called ‘Targeting Social Need’.
It might have seemed reasonable to assume that this could refer to anything which might address a social need but, when officials talked about ‘targeting social need’, they were referring only to that policy and the things it prescribed – because that was how they had become accustomed to use those words in their environment.
Actually the policy in question had a very specific focus. Therefore, when someone I knew was trying to get government support for a social initiative which he was proposing, he was not getting a positive response. Although what he was proposing would indeed address an identified social need, it did not fall within the narrow confines of the policy, and so was not considered to fit ‘targeting social need’. Therefore, without someone to interpret who could understand that difference, the result was frustration.
Consequently I have on occasion explained that, in interactions between people from different cultures, such as between the cultures of the public and private sectors, it might actually be helpful if one side spoke a different language to the other – because then they would know that they needed an interpreter.
So, is that your experience: can you recognise those situations and seek appropriate help?
