Political correctness is killing this country, or so I’ve heard.

What I haven’t heard is a clear, crisp definition of what the phrase political correctness means.

When I first heard it I was pretty clear on the concept: It meant I couldn’t tell Polish or Italian jokes anymore. This was back in high school, where my clarity about the concept came courtesy of a much larger and more muscular Polish acquaintance who made certain I understood his point, reinforced by a seriously cute Italian girl who explained that I’d just reduced my chances of dating her to the sort of number mathematicians use negative exponents to express.

Along with the recognition that racially-and ethnically-oriented jokes were in bad taste came an increasingly widespread recognition that the extensive and colorful variety of racial and ethnic pejoratives that had been in common use, and the various stereotypes that had accompanied them, were no longer to be uttered in polite company either.

As my own heritage has in the past been used as a verb meaning “to negotiate beyond the point of reasonableness” — a stereotype I’ve often wished was more accurate when negotiating compensation and consulting rates, even while finding it offensive when spoken aloud — I long-ago made my peace with political correctness.

My perspective is, I recognize, less than universally shared — a situation I always find puzzling. In this case I’ve often wondered if the main problem is one of pronunciation: It should be spoken as “Polite-ical correctness.”

The problem, friends and acquaintances have explained to me, is that the desire to avoid offending anyone has been taken off a cliff, as in the example of calling people who are particularly short in stature “vertically challenged.”

Which leads in turn to the question, why would you want to call attention to someone’s past-two-standard-deviations stature? If they suffered from some other unusual size characteristic … say, unusually small hands … would you … oh, wait. Never mind. We crossed that boundary a couple of months ago.

None of this would be in bounds for Keep the Joint Running were it not for the nature of the most recent attempts to make political correctness socially incorrect.

Which is that right now, among some members of the political (as opposed to the polite-ical) class, political correctness means being forbidden to attach bigoted and factually incorrect stereotypes to all Muslims of all stripes everywhere in the world.

And, for that matter, to all Sikhs as well, because many of those who complain about political correctness aren’t all that well-informed, not only about Islam but also about what it means to wear a turban.

This is a legitimate KJR topic because, in your role as business or IT leader, you’re likely to hear colleagues emulating their favorite political personage or pundit, expounding loudly, unfavorably and in public about Muslims.

Which, whether they realize it or not, insults the DBA, developer, or sysadmin in the next cubicle. One of those who feels offended might report to you. If so, you have a legal responsibility to make sure they don’t work in a threatening and harassing environment.

Depending on your personal moral code, even without HR’s dictates you might figure you have a responsibility to help out someone who’s on the receiving end of verbal bullying, because being a bystander in a situation like this is the sort of passive behavior that won’t make you proud of yourself when you look in the mirror tomorrow morning.

More important than this: Why would you want to let some uninformed lout spew garbage that drives good employees to work for a competitor? We’re all in a fight for talent. That being the case, fight to win.

Sometimes, even with the best of intentions we hold back, for no other reason than that we aren’t sure what to say in embarrassing circumstances like these. If that’s what’s troubling you, be troubled no more.

I recommend starting by looking at the offending party with a sour expression and a don’t-look-away gaze that’s just short of a stare. When you’re sure you have their attention, say, “What you’re saying is offensive and uninformed. You’re welcome to your opinion, but you aren’t welcome to share it here. What you’re doing is a firing offense, so we’re both better off if you button it right now. Save it for a bar after you’ve left the office. People in bars expect to hear folks who have had a few too many expressing their ignorance in loud voices.”

Well, okay, maybe that isn’t the best way to handle it.

Tempting though.

News flash: business is speeding up.

Okay, maybe it isn’t news. But if it isn’t, why are so many businesses slowing down?

No, it isn’t your imagination. Read “The Hard Evidence: Business is Slowing Down,” Tom Monahan, Fortune, 1/28/2016). Among Monahan’s findings, using 2010 as a baseline:

  • IT project delivery has slowed, from 8.5 months to 10 months.
  • Open positions take longer to fill, from 42 days to 63 days.
  • Purchase decisions are taking 22% longer.

Like all statistics, these are open to alternative interpretations. IT Projects might, for example, have become bigger and more complex over the five years covered by the study.

Or maybe it’s due to Agile: Emptying a dynamically managed backlog might take more time than finishing waterfall projects that exercise tight scope management. Completion is one thing. Agile’s shorter time to first value is something else.

For hiring, with 2015’s lower unemployment rate, open positions might have become harder to fill. For purchasing … I’m sure we can come up with something if we put our minds to it.

Or not. Monahan’s data match my experience — the average business errs on the side of caution, never mind the impact on velocity and agility.

What if Amazon made decisions this way? Google?

A better question: What will you do if Amazon or Google decides to invade your markets?

This sort of invasion isn’t always apparent, either. For example, do you think the folks at Dex realized Google Maps was an invasion when it first appeared?

Truth in advertising: Neither did I, until I realized that’s where I was looking for nearby sellers of what I wanted to buy, leaving the Yellow Pages on my kitchen bookshelf.

But then, nobody was paying me to realize it, so I don’t feel all that bad about missing it.

Here’s a guarantee: If your business sells physical products, it’s at risk of invasion from competing products with embedded intelligence and connection to the Internet of Things. If you sell some form of services … see Google Maps, above.

Justifying delay until flank attacks appear by claiming a “fast follower” strategy is a losing proposition. Among the reasons: fast followers are rarely the companies that know how to be fast.

How does a business become fast? Getting rid of everything that makes it slow is a good place to begin. Start with decisions. These are things politically-driven business managers avoid like rabid weasels, by the way, so a business speed-up artist is operating in a target-rich environment.

And there’s no richer set of targets than the variety of governance and steering committees that pervade most enterprises.

Maybe you’ve avoided this infestation. But probably not. The bigger the decision, the more likely it will be governed by a committee, specifically to give decision-makers political cover should something go wrong.

Here are five straightforward steps for scaling back committee decision sclerosis:

  • Size: Committees generally make decisions by consensus. The difficulty of reaching consensus grows polynomially with the number of committee members: In round numbers a committee of ten takes three times as long to reach consensus as a committee of five.
  • Composition: Most committees are composed of representatives from different business constituencies. They’re included to protect their areas’ interests. Committees designed like this aren’t just a consequence of siloization — they’re an endorsement of it.

Populate your committees based on expertise instead.

  • Cadence: Most committees, most of the time, gravitate to a monthly meeting schedule. This make the month the standard unit of time for decision-making. Worse, it builds wait-for-the-next-meeting into the management culture.

Do something radical: Insist that all committees meet weekly instead. Don’t worry about this congesting the company. The effect can be the exact opposite: Committees that meet four times as often ought to have meetings that only last a quarter as long.

  • Culture: Make culture your new governance. Build the right decision habits into it, and culture can be your decision-making “lane markers.” Reserve formal governance committees for use as its guard rails.

Unless, that is, your company makes a habit of hiring and retaining employees and managers it can’t trust to make good decisions. If that’s the case, fix your staffing practices.

Then make culture your new governance.

  • Disband: Do you really need a committee to make this decision? Rely on individual stewards instead, requiring them to make decisions consultatively rather than by consensus or, at the other extreme, solely through their personal judgment and expertise.

There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? Sure, most members of most committees will run away screaming in terror.

But that’s a small price to pay.