Office Talk: "Out of Pocket"

OK, if you know me well, you already know this: I have a big problem with the way the phrase out of pocket is used in the office today. In fact, this phrase was the inspiration for this weekly rant. A long time ago -- maybe not so long ago, but definitely before the Internet age -- in the office, out of pocket had only one popular meaning:  it was an accounting term for "expenses that an individual incurs for either business or personal usage. These expenses are tax deductible." Like many great office cliches, out of pocket was easy to remember because it was simple and descriptive. It was also easy to remember because it conveyed a physical experience ("hey -- it's coming out of my pocket -- it better be tax deductible").

Then came an odd mutation on the phrase. Over the past few years, I've heard many people -- even smart people -- use out of pocket to mean "out-of-reach, not available for some specified period of time." At first, I was merely annoyed (not enough to write something about it). Then I was intrigued. Seems a lot of people today, especially in Silicon Valley, are using the phrase this way. Putting aside the question of whether this is permissible -- that's not my beat -- is there some unconscious reason why people persist in doing this? The unconscious use of annoying office language is my beat , so I pressed on ....

After numerous conversations with the guilty and the innocent (many people still adhere to the older, squarish definition), here's what I think: out of pocket in its new, annoying form, does in fact betray under-the-surface thinking about the office. When your colleague says, "Hey, I'm gonna be out of pocket between 1-3pm today," what you are hearing, on the surface, is that your colleague will be out of reach. But what you might be hearing, if you paid closer attention, is "hey -- don't even bother -- you can use email, phone, IM, SMS, carrier pidgeon -- there's nothing you can do to reach me at that time -- hah." Yes, you are detecting a tone of satisfaction in her voice, because with this one innocuous, though annoying expression, she has taken herself out of your pocket ... at least for the time being.

That's the nub of my argument: in today's world, where everyone is expected to be available to almost anyone, at anytime, it's a pleasure -- if guilty -- to be out of reach. But the sheer physicality of the phrase is quite revealing. In the old days, it was our pocket that concerned us. Today, it is someone else's pocket that persists in our deepest thoughts. Why, we protest, should we be in someone else's pocket, like a wallet, a cell phone, a set of keys? We never belonged there in the first place, so how can you blame anyone for wanting to get the hell out?

NEXT WEEK ON OFFICE TALK: "NET NET"

Comments

[Kieran]

I cringe when I her this expression, except when I'm filling out my travel claim for "out of pocket" expenses;-)

[Jason V]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
This is the most annoying and idiotic phrase ever. And if you work with or for HP, you will hear it ten times a day. Two issues: 1. Uniqueness. The phrase already existed to refer to a type of expenses, you can't start using it to refer to something completely different!! How confusing is that? What if the phrase "over the hill" started to mean that someone had overcome an obstacle? Think how confusing and offense that could be. Hey Bob, congratulations, how does it feel to be over the hill? So we have another expression, "over the hump" to deal with that scenario. Both expressions are necessary, but there had to be something to distinguish them. In the case of "out of pocket," there's no distinguishing factor outside of context, and sometimes not even then! 2. Necessity. Let's look at the true and correct usage. "I incurred a lot of out of pocket expenses due to all the bridge tolls." vs. "I had to pay bridge tolls with my own cash that I had, so even though the company will reimburse me, I have to fill out paperwork and I won't see that money for quite some time" Clearly the phrase "out of pocket" makes this sentence a lot easier to communicate and everyone in the office will know exactly what you mean. It's a necessary expression. Now think of the second, recently popular, and grossly incorrect usage: "I won't be on the call, I'm unavailable this afternoon." vs. "I won't be on the call, I'm out of pocket this afternoon." The expression actually makes the statement longer and more confusing!! The English language already has a word 'unavailable' we don't need a three word expression that means the same thing and provides no level of detail. The only reason that people would use it is because somehow it is more innocuous than 'unavailable.' Maybe unavailable sounds like the person is slacking in their work duties. If people are misusing some expression, just to gloss over the fact that they are in fact unavailable to perform some duty, then that is cowardly and it confuses everyone who hears it. And if you're anything like me, you lose all respect for that person's intelligence.