RCorrigan - you've hit the nail on the head (cliché warning). The validity that TechSpeak (as to the extent I am versed in it) has over CorpSpeak is that TechSpeak relates to actual things.
New words and phrases may be added from time to time as needs arise, but in my experience they don't become clichéd. Maybe they do and I just haven't experienced it...
But CorpSpeak is the creation of coined phrases (clichés) that everyone is supposed to understand. Win/Win, snyergy, "thinking outside the box", "putting on our thinking caps", "working smarter/stronger/better", etc.
Initially these phrases may all have a real meaning behind them, but as the 'movers and shakers' use them (or steal them) everyone else begins to use them and soon the meaning is lost and replaced with a generalist impression that every cliché represents. At this point people begin to use the phrases because they feel obligated to even if they don't truely understand the meaning, and in those cases you, the recipit of the speech, are supposed to make up for their lack of knowledge and precision. Couple that with the structured world of WorldCorp (despite the constant remind to 'think outside the box') and the result is a workforce more confused after the speech than before.
And much like the fact no one will ask a question in class even though everyone does not understand the point, the speaker (much like the teacher) recieves the mistaken impression that people understand the message (which they themselves are likely not completely clear on), which rewards and reinforces the use of CorpSpeak.
***
In specific regards to 'win/win' - the problem is no the paridigm, but the use. A win/win is fairly obvious, but expanding upon gbaughma's example, win/wins are only possible in certain stages. Once the pie is made there is only a certain amount of pie regardless of how many hands helped make it. Too many people use win/win incorrectly and this had lead to its inclusion as a staple of CorpSpeak.
***
gbaughma - I'm not arguing against the paridigm shift you are suggesting, I am trying to highlight the risks that are taken in making the shift. The risks may end up being signficantly less than the reward, but it they are there and weren't touched upon.
When you win/win you are giving something up, even if its not immediately tangible or even evident for years. In the pie creation example, if you build a pie with other people and your compeitors builds it themselves you have traded flexibility (by becoming dependent on others for part of the creation process) and in the future you are risking being at a skill-disadvantage because you never learned how to provide the apples for the pie. In a perfect free-market this would not likely be a problem, however this system is not a utopian free-market so the ugly head of reality does thus rear.