There was some article or blog I read that put forth a very convincing argument that "corporate speak" (what the OP is all about, which applies not only to external comm but also internal) is actually necessary and beneficial. Something about how you can't talk to everyone the same way because they all have different perspectives/bets/goals, but sometimes as a leader you have everyone looking at you at the same time, so you have to say something.
Basically as you mature as a leader, your communication style has to evolve.
So mature leader == ability to say something that will make everyone happy, but lacks concrete terms? I realize that part of leadership is keeping people happy, but is it really correct to consistently bury a little bit of content in a lot of fluff?
The trouble is that, as a guy working for The Man, corp-speak just makes me think that the corporate leaders are guys who will say anything as long as it can be couched in non-offensive terms.
How we stand out is through six guiding principles, which bring our vision to life and help us attract many of the best PR and communications pros in the industry:
1. Attract and Retain Distinct Talent - Recruit people of integrity who respect one another, want to grow professionally, value diverse views, work hard and have fun.
2. Preserve Our Client-centered Culture - Make sure we continue to forge enduring client partnerships by delivering fresh and actionable insights, compelling creativity and quality work.
3. Focus on Results - Deliver results that clearly show value and drive brand awareness, credibility and loyalty.
4. Go Beyond the Obvious - Seek innovative solutions -- from any source -- to address each client’s unique business challenge.
5. Create Communications That Get Heard - Dominate in media relations and differentiate through innovative media solutions -- deepen relationships by engaging influencers and stakeholders.
6. Hold Each Other Accountable - Evaluate our performance against fair and objective standards to improve our performance as individuals, teams and a total firm.
Yes, it is sad. And yes, it must be done out of necessity.
Any company, especially a large company, must do business with a large number of people. Inevitably, some of those people will be, uh, neurotic. Some of those people belong to watch-dog groups which may or may not have motivations aside from playing out internal "rescuer" psychodramas. Some of those people are journalists who are itching to carve out a "hard-hitting" reputation from the hides of their betters. Some of those people are lawyers who are trying to salve their consciences by showing that no, they didn't go into Law just for the money. Some of those people are bureaucrats who wish to demonstrate their "impact" so as to impress their peers at the next high-society cocktail party. And so forth.
Corporations act like contemptible curs partly because the free market does not work exactly as advertised, partly because business schools are seedbeds of iniquity, and partly because they get punished for acting otherwise.
In this example, the fundamental problem with the original set of statements is that they are not true.
The problem is that the copywriter works at an organization that has contemptible business practices. Given that state of affairs she could either:
1) Tell the truth and produce a highly cynical document that would cost her job plus blowback.
2) Tell lies (the original version), causing blowback and probably costing her and several others their jobs.
3) Write a bunch of pleasant-sounding meaningless nothings (the final version) which fulfills her assignment of writing a value statement free of both lies and brutal honesty. Interestingly, on a meta level, this is actually a very honest document, as it ends up reading "We have no values."
If there is one thing I've learned about the public, it's that crazy scales superlinearly. I used to work for a people search engine called Spock. We curated hundreds of millions of profiles for people living and dead. We got howling crap for:
Adding the tag "pedophile" to a writer who crusades against the smearing of gays as pedophiles (Ouch. Term extraction fail.).
Adding the picture of Walter Gross, Nazi, to the profile of Walter Gross, journalist. (!!)
Using the tag "Jew" on profiles for people who are (can you guess?) Jewish.
Tagging a woman in (very Catholic) Spain as a priest because her last name was "Pastor". (NLP fail.)
Tagging Jesus as deceased.
Tagging Jesus as not deceased.
...and lots more. Some of these were genuine grievances. Some were driven by people with an axe to grind. In most cases, an honest answer would not have helped matters at all.
The honest answer was "Oops. We're trying the best we can with a very hard problem. We're not trying to piss you off. Your particular case is a rounding error. In some cases we think you are taking it way too seriously. Screaming bloody murder doesn't make it any easier."
I agree with everything you are saying, but wish to clarify the question of "necessity."
The choice between publishing your true values and watering them down into meaningless pap is a false dichotomy. The third option is to realize that you are now saying nothing and say nothing.
Thus, I agree that IF you wish to publish something, you ought to consider the potential consequences, however I still reserve the right to criticize corporations for choosing to say something when no statement was required.
Basically as you mature as a leader, your communication style has to evolve.