"Let's form proactive synergy restructuring teams"
About this Quote
Nothing signals “we’re about to make your job worse” like a sentence that sounds engineered by a committee of corporate thesauruses. Scott Adams, as the Dilbert-era court stenographer of office absurdity, compresses a whole managerial pathology into seven words: the way organizations launder anxiety through jargon until it feels like strategy.
The intent is satirical, but it’s not just dunking on buzzwords for being corny. “Proactive” preemptively frames whatever comes next as visionary, even if it’s reactive panic. “Synergy” promises alchemy: more output without admitting the inputs will be layoffs, longer hours, or turf wars. “Restructuring” is the tell - a euphemism that tries to sound neutral while carrying the implication of disruption and disposability. Then “teams” puts a friendly, collaborative bow on what is often a top-down mandate. The phrase is a linguistic shield: it diffuses accountability (“the team decided”), softens consequences (“restructuring” instead of “cuts”), and turns managerial will into inevitable process.
Contextually, it belongs to the late-20th/early-21st-century corporate culture Adams built his brand skewering: endless reorganizations, McKinsey-speak, and the ritual of meetings where language substitutes for action. The subtext is that the speaker is performing competence rather than demonstrating it - signaling alignment with power, not clarity of purpose. It works because anyone who’s sat through a reorg recognizes the smell: when words get this abstract, the concrete reality is usually already decided, and it’s rarely good news.
The intent is satirical, but it’s not just dunking on buzzwords for being corny. “Proactive” preemptively frames whatever comes next as visionary, even if it’s reactive panic. “Synergy” promises alchemy: more output without admitting the inputs will be layoffs, longer hours, or turf wars. “Restructuring” is the tell - a euphemism that tries to sound neutral while carrying the implication of disruption and disposability. Then “teams” puts a friendly, collaborative bow on what is often a top-down mandate. The phrase is a linguistic shield: it diffuses accountability (“the team decided”), softens consequences (“restructuring” instead of “cuts”), and turns managerial will into inevitable process.
Contextually, it belongs to the late-20th/early-21st-century corporate culture Adams built his brand skewering: endless reorganizations, McKinsey-speak, and the ritual of meetings where language substitutes for action. The subtext is that the speaker is performing competence rather than demonstrating it - signaling alignment with power, not clarity of purpose. It works because anyone who’s sat through a reorg recognizes the smell: when words get this abstract, the concrete reality is usually already decided, and it’s rarely good news.
Quote Details
| Topic | Team Building |
|---|
More Quotes by Scott
Add to List




