Business buzzwords: When plain language works better

One of the things Dr Shane Littrell liked least about working in a corporate setting was the way senior management communicated with staff.

“One of my bosses loved to use words such as ‘synergising’, ‘derivation’ and ‘optimal flow-through’ in ways that did not make coherent sense. He also loved to say that we would ‘download on’ a topic rather than ‘discuss’ or ‘talk about’ it.

“The way executives often spoke probably sounded impressive — at least to them — but made actual communication much more difficult for everyone else,” he says.

Littrell became so disillusioned with the corporate environment that he switched careers. Today, he is a cognitive psychologist who works as a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Government at Cornell University in the US. His latest research looks at the effect this type of “semantically empty” corporate speak has on the workplace.

Jargon's purpose

While jargon gets a bad rap, it serves several purposes — one of which is to inform.

“In technical terms, jargon refers to socially learned words, expressions or acronyms that have a specific use in particular industries and professional groups,” Littrell explains. “Think of an emergency room, where doctors and nurses are constantly calling out medical jargon when taking care of a critical patient. This language is vital in these situations because it makes communication more efficient.”

This type of terminology serves as shorthand for those in the know.

“Jargon may be difficult for outsiders to understand, but when it is used correctly and as intended it is helpful because it makes communication faster and easier for the intended in-group audience,” Littrell says.

Organisational or industry-specific jargon can also signal a sense of belonging based on the idea of a shared language.

“Properly used organisational jargon not only makes inter-company communication faster and easier, but it can also increase social bonding and help reinforce a shared identity among members of an organisation,” he continues. “Jargon only really becomes a problem when it is used excessively, or incorrectly and performatively.”

The misuse of jargon

While appropriately used jargon improves the clarity and speed of communication, buzzword-heavy corporate speak is generally used to impress, evade or persuade.

Littrell says many people rely on corporate speak to impress others as they seek to climb the corporate ladder.

“In that sense, it can function as a false signal of knowledge, competence, status or authority, which are arguably the most important social currencies that matter for hiring, promotion and workplace influence,” he explains.

“It also has other strategic uses such as deflecting blame or distracting stakeholders from negative information, like when a company or executive uses vague, convoluted language to divert attention from layoffs, missed targets or other bad news.”

It can be difficult for employees to distinguish between genuine and misleading uses of corporate jargon. In some cases, jargon “serves as a built-in layer of camouflage for people who want to strategically manipulate others with their words”, Littrell says.

Andreea Calude, a linguist at The University of Waikato in New Zealand, describes jargon as “in-group speak”. She says that while it can signify knowledge and group membership, it is sometimes used to gatekeep and uphold rigid hierarchies.

“Problems can arise when people do not understand a phrase or concept, but they do not feel like they can ask what the term means because then they mark themselves as not being part of the group. As a result, they might be excluded or looked down upon.”

Misleading language

Confusing corporate speak comes with a cost. Some workplace language that sounds smart and strategic on a superficial level can be what Littrell describes as “functionally misleading”, where it misdirects the audience regardless of the speaker’s intentions.

“It can distort whether the audience clearly and accurately understands the goals, feedback or decisions that are communicated to them,” he says. “This can not only impair employee performance and career advancement but potentially lead to reputational and financial costs for organisations as well.”

A good example of the disruptive effect corporate speak can have in the workplace can be seen in performance reviews.

“Those types of conversations are usually difficult on both sides of the table,” Littrell says. “Supervisors often lean on confusing, jargon-heavy language and evasion to navigate the emotionally uncomfortable parts of those conversations, and employees will often use persuasion to defend themselves.”

As a result, he says, “the employee often leaves confused and fundamentally misunderstanding what they have done well and what they need to improve, and the supervisor leaves with the mistaken belief that the session was informative and productive”.

Plain language is key

Professionals should make communicating with clarity the norm, Littrell advises. Leaders can start by modelling the use of plain language. “They should normalise clearly defining terms, focus on shorter sentences and resist using ambiguous buzzwords,” he says.

Culture is another crucial component. Littrell says corporate speak tends to thrive in environments that reinforce sounding smart over making meaningful contributions.

“Besides encouraging people to ask more questions,” he says, “companies could incorporate these standards into performance reviews by explicitly crediting employees for things like communicating clearly and plainly, flagging empty claims and turning ambiguity into actionable plans.”

 

_{Production credit
Banner image RapidEye via Getty Images}