Let's "Incent" Plain English

I remember being shocked--shocked--when Jack Kemp expounded on his housing initiatives, decades ago now, by talking about "incentivizing" and "de-incentivizing" (or was it dis-incentivizing?) people. Whaaa?? Where'd that word come from? As recently as September 5th, in a bylined article, the former vice presidential candidate writes about the Gulf States' challenge to " 'incentivize' and empower private ownership and private enterprise."

That term sounded off-key to me then and it sounds off-key to me now--despite the fact that tons of people have jumped on the incentivizing bandwagon. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he liked to "incentivize" his campaign workers "to do a good job." Virginia's Governor-elect Timothy Kaine wants to "incentivize small businesses" to buy health insurance for employees.

Lately, I've been noticing a new mangling of what I thought was the noun, "incentive."

A few weeks ago, I was in a hotel ballroom listening to Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm talk about managing performance. I was absorbed and interested in what she had to say. And then... She suggested how to "incent" staff members. Twang. My ears hurt. A verb. No one else seemed to twitch.

She is not the only person to use the phrase this way, not even the only female governor. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire talks about the need to "incent" business growth. Even President Bush talks about incenting investment in technology. Not that this nation relies on this or any other president as the arbiter of English language use. (And the definition of "is" is?)

disincent-incentivization.JPG In one article dissing (see, I can move forward with the language) the use of "incent," the writer called it business jargon. Another called it the "jargon of a bureaucrat." Whether the word is business' or bureaucracy's fault, it's alienating. It's a jarring buzzword. It puts people off. Don't "task" me with the job of "architecting" a whole lot of reasons why. I'll "calendar" that job for another time.

But, lo and behold, "incent" is an entry in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. As of 2003. Then again, so is "phat" (for excellent) and "dead presidents" (for cash). But I don't suspect elected leaders will be calling it a "phat idea to invest dead presidents in the pension fund." Just because words make it into the dictionary doesn't mean it's wise to use them.

Many, many newspaper readers hate the word incent. Letters and emails to editors and writers prove this. That doesn't make readers right, either. But you'd think someone interested in cultivating a certain image would want to avoid irritating a portion of his or her audience.

In arguing with readers who say "incent" is not a word, Jan Freeman, wrote in the Boston Globe, "Is it [incent] silly, ugly, unnecessary? If you like, but so are pierced tongues and 'Fear Factor but that doesn't make them imaginary.' " Now there's an endorsement.

Elected officials tend to be mindful of how they come across to audiences. I suggest it would be best to eschew obfuscation and "repurpose"--or is it "re-engineer?"--those speeches. I think it would be a reincentivization for all of us in the listening audience.