Jargon ad Absurdum

Without an agreed upon lexicon, connecting on concepts becomes impossible. Even within the agreement of a specific language, the prevalence of terms and phrases that may or may not mean something is pervasive. Think back to your last presentation, as the receiver, not as the speaker. Was it in plain English, easy to follow, drove a message, and you had a clear knowledge transfer or call to action by the end? Or did they expose you to words that were definitely words, but they didn’t mean what you thought they meant? If we can’t get our message across, or at least ensure that the audience is following along, have we just defeated the very core purpose of language. This statement might sound very dramatic but the more we push words, phrases, or memes the more risk we run of a failure to influence, encourage, or educate our audience. Jargon appears in a variety of contexts, but the key feature of jargon is that it is language that makes it hard for those 'not in the know' to understand your intended message.

What are we seeking to accomplish when we present ideas? We’re trying to get something across. Our basic function of language is to transfer information. We have evolved to a point that gesturing at a tree and grunting no longer was effective; there’s a limit to pantomime. Maybe I mean “that’s a great tree and you should eat the bark to cure your headaches”. Worst case, my charades are not making it clear the tree is about to fall on you.  Extreme pendulum swing there in a short amount of time, but I don’t have to worry about that because I have the words to make that clear to you. Since then, we’ve refined our languages by combining concepts, evolving terms, repurposing them or ultimately stealing words to improve clarity. We have an issue though when those previous improvements reduce clarity. For those of us in a technical profession though, the prevalence of jargon might be the antithesis to our message.

There is a lot of confusion and wasted activity when the message is unclear.

Emergent language is not bad. I know many will get defensive now: “I need those terms. I am in a very technical profession and we have to describe complex concepts”.  This discussion isn’t about that. Language evolves and technical language is especially mutable. One of the critical uses of ‘new words’ will be in taking an incredibly complex concept and packaging it in a word. There are many technical things that have a paper (or book) of explanation behind them and can be described in a phrase. Do you want to try to explain recursion or just say the word? There is an important distinction here though, and that is the use of this language among colleagues and those tangentially involved. Much like dogma, an agreed upon glossary is a staple of almost any professional group. What’s important is that it’s agreed upon. A new phrase is explained, repeated, accepted.  There is a natural control that language is not introduced where it isn’t needed because a term already existed. It’s generally clearly documented and – most importantly – the community generally will resist misappropriation of terms. This is where the use of phrases that either have no established meaning or highly contested definitions will frustrate our audiences. We’ve established appropriateness; time to limit that. What if you take that term outside the community without the primer? This is the trap of context. If the audience lacks it, and it hasn’t been established, they aren’t following.  It became jargon because the listener lacked the background to get “the joke”. It can feel restricting to leave your glossary with your peers, but when we address broader audiences, or when we introduce new concepts to even our own peer group, the language we choose should be selected carefully. We went through a lot of effort in crafting ideas, the way in which we convey them should be no less meticulous.

One of the debates I frequently find myself in probably seems silly to an outsider: what is the definition of ‘control tower’ in the context of supply chain? 

I know there’s a Webster’s definition for that phrase. If I stopped someone on the street and asked, they’d probably assume I meant aviation and guiding planes. But if you ask someone in my line of work, you will get at least 10 different versions of it. We can’t agree on what it means. Now, if this is the basis for everything that follows its use, can we really position a discussion when the noun hasn’t been established to have concrete meaning. 

We borrowed an existing phrase, changed its meaning, didn’t agree on that meaning, and knee-capped any discussion that would have followed.

A lot of jargon arises from the misuse of specialized terms outside their community. Sometimes, it is easy to accuse someone of obfuscation. That’s another fun word in its own right as it means “the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.”   Some speakers will pepper a talk with the express purpose of making it look more difficult to understand or short-circuiting debate. This is the more critical use of jargon and the one that we must push back on. I have seen more than my share of presentations ‘punching up the language’ to use that as a false plea to authority. I used the words; I clearly know what I’m talking about! The confusion means you should trust in my expertise. For some, this can be a coaching opportunity as well. I have edited more than one paper where jargon was a mask for insecurity. If the language is simple, and everyone can follow, they can also judge. Getting to a point where you are confident enough to welcome critique is hard; like anything else, being critiqued requires building up calluses. Identifying when specialized language is necessary as opposed to message destroying can be hard. Simplify the language. Avoid jargon by using technical terms where appropriate.

For my own part, liberal use of jargon was a failing of youth and one an early mentor corrected me of. Sure, no one questioned a thing I said, but the problem was they didn’t question anything; I was consistently losing the audience. In the worst such correction, I was bluntly told that some members of my regular reports stopped listening before I even started. Why get frustrated with my language if they were going to get lost?

I’d achieved the worst possible outcome; pre-dismissal of what I had to say having any value. 

The point of our communication is to share ideas, inspire change, or encourage action of one sort or another. At all times, we should err on the side of clarity. How can we sell something if we’re struggling to convince the audience how important this change is? Simpler words, or an acknowledgement that some words and phrases are actually counter-productive can let us focus on the problem at hand -- and not the problem in our mouths. As individual disciplines become more unique, business has increasingly asked that they work cross-function and that demands that message contain as little friction as possible. I’m not suggesting we go back to grunts and hand signals, but I think we can all look around the room and know when you’re speaking Latin as well. The next time you are writing, presenting, conversing, think about how much of your position could be understood by someone who isn’t in your profession.  

"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent Coupa's positions, strategies, or opinions. I write about topics that excite and interest me as an individual."