Home » Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

A Way with Words, a radio show and podcast about language and linguistics.

Discussion Forum (Archived)

Please consider registering
Guest
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
"Incumbent"
Guest
1
2012/03/08 - 1:42pm

I'm a contract computer wallah, and in pursuit of my next contract I frequently read "reqs" (ie requirements; a "req" is a company's advertisement that they're searching for someone to fill a position, and usually lists what skills they want the candidate to have). In the last year or two I've noticed the growth of the term "incumbent" to mean what they used to call the "successful candidate", that is, the person they want to hire. The used to say "the successful candidate will have extensive experience in...", but here's a paragraph from an email I got just today:

The incumbent interacts extensively with external and internal contacts on projects, issues, etc. The position handles the most highly visible and critical MIS projects. The incumbent is responsible for non-routine projects with significant intangibles with limited supervision. The incumbent deals with highly sensitive data.

I checked the definition, and it's what we all expected; it's the current holder of a position.   So unless they mean that the current guy in this position does all that, but they want to replace her, then this is a misuse of the term.   Has anyone else seen it?

Guest
2
2012/03/08 - 7:13pm

Bob Bridges said:

 So unless they mean that the current guy in this position does all that, but they want to replace her, then this is a misuse of the term.

My guess is that what you think they don't mean is exactly what they mean.   I have never seen "incumbent" used in a job description so I could be all wrong, but the extract you gave could definitely be talking about the job and the current jobholder rather than the potential jobholder.   This seems especially true due to the use of the present tense in every sentence. "The incumbent interacts" not "The incumbent will interact."   I admit this is a different way to write job requirements but it is the only explanation. (except total ignorance)

Guest
3
2012/03/08 - 11:46pm

‘Incumbent' in this case looks like a valid use of adjective-as-noun- same as in “Give me your tired, your poor...” though it's the first I've ever seen ‘incumbent' used in job ad.

It can not be noun in the original sense of ‘current person' because you don't post a job by describing the current job holder. But as adjective-as-noun, it makes sense, meaning anyone who will become incumbent meaning 'obligated',   ‘in charge', etc.

Guest
4
2012/03/09 - 4:53am

I share the confusion of everyone about this use. I have never seen "incumbant" used in a job posting, nor have I ever seen a job posting refer to the current job holder. I would be open to correction, but my first read is that it is describing the person who currently holds the job as a way to define the job's responsibilities.

This is my best guess: the organization went through an exercise of defining every position in the organization for the purposes of some kind of audit. As such, they had a library of job descriptions without regard to filling openings, but simply to describe each person's responsibilities. (I have seen this done.) Then, when they found themselves in need of filling the job, they simply pulled one of these descriptions wholesale and unedited, and posted it as the description for the open position.

Thoughts?

Guest
5
2012/03/10 - 2:57am

Googling 'The incumbent interacts' returns pages upon pages of like ads, which seems to say language will be whatever will take hold. My 2 cents about this usage is after the initial 'what?', I now feel quite comfortable with it, because it has the virtue of conciseness, and best of all, it fits right in with traditional usage, keeping its traditional meaning, if you see it as adjective-as-noun.

 

Forum Timezone: UTC -7
Show Stats
Administrators:
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Moderators:
Grant Barrett
Top Posters:
Newest Members:
A Conversation with Dr Astein Osei
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 1
Topics: 3647
Posts: 18912

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 618
Members: 1268
Moderators: 1
Admins: 2
Most Users Ever Online: 1147
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 88
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Recent posts