Businessing

I’ve recently written a piece about the present participle, ‘ing’, connoting a sense of identity in regards to what one does outside of work and the manner in which it is somewhat abused.

What is interesting though is the manner in which it also acts as a legitimizer after which it is difficult to criticize whatever activity has been labelled. Ridiculous examples abound: ‘planking’ for some reason, garners widespread media coverage and flourishes as a farcical movement while its essence: pretending to be a plank of wood exposes its laughable nature in full, and is hardly worthy of a second conversation. Funnily, this could be a manifestation of branding at its very finest.

On a more serious note however, it’s quite entertaining to see how the use of three letters can add legitimacy to many concepts in business. In often cases, they are proper markers of legitimacy. What is a bit bothering though are the cases in which ‘ing’ suggests that an approach can be used for everything. Misunderstandings have resulted in misconceptions that branding can be applied to all problems- apparently so can design thinking and as is most widespread: creative accounting.

As I grow in my role, I’ve found that good practitioners know when to say no, and when their approach will not fit a given problem. It takes integrity and honesty, but when you see it, it’s nothing short of reassuring.

It has to be recognized that many approaches and the various ‘-ing’s and ‘ment’s used in their labeling should be seen less as definitive nouns than they are as verbs. ‘Screw-drivering’, ‘hammering’, ‘thumping’. These are activities that have their time and place. And that’s the way we should see everything else that ends with an ‘ing’.