When people use code they’re being less than forthright. Consider:
The potential recruit who says, “I’m interested” when asked about their impressions of the position they’re interviewing for. ‘Interested’ in this instance is code for, “it’s true I’d consider your position, but I’m really considering a number of options.” To assume the recruit is actually committed would be a mistake.
The senior officer who says, “here at ACME we’re always looking out for your success” when speaking with a new analyst in her department. It’s a much weaker thing to say that the company (e.g. ACME) is looking out for the analyst’s success than for the senior officer to personally commit to the analyst’s success. In this instance, ‘we’re’ is code for the senior officer to hide behind ACME (an oft-time nebulous, faceless organization) and avoid making a personal commitment to the analyst.
The hiring manager who says “we’re looking for fresh perspectives” to the 55 year old job applicant. That’s code for “we’re looking for younger workers”. The applicant shouldn’t be mislead, there is a snow ball’s chance in a very hot place they’ll be hired.
Authenticity is the anti-thesis to code. Most organizations would be well served by increasing authenticity and decreasing code….largely because code is less-than-forthright, it can mislead, it breeds cynicism…and, most importantly, it undermines trust. Until authenticity increases, know the code.