Jargon and its Malcontents: Is “Jargon” Obscuring a Deeper Problem?
We need to have a conversation about words. More specifically, we need to have a conversation about the words that we call jargon. We do not need to denounce jargon in all its forms, rather we need to take a closer look at why businesspeople are so allergic to fancy words and the causes for this. The war waged against jargon has many fronts. It is a brutal one because it is fought in a way that throws away the good inherent in specific language in order to eliminate terminology that many perceive as elitist, overcomplicated, or even unnecessary. This is a problem. There is nothing to fear in long, technical, “expensive” words. Perspicacity and exactitude must have their day.
Jargon is, after all, just specialist language. It is nothing to be afraid of. Jargon is really in the eye of the beholder. In fact, for those trained in a specific field — any field, really — jargon is actually just really specific language. To use these big words is to be specific, efficient, and careful. These terms have deep meaning for those on the inside. For those of us outside of that field, much of this specific language is quite difficult because we do not know what lies behind. We are unaware of the shorthand and the deep associations and thinking that are representing in a word like ‘phenomenology,’ or it’s like. When we read something filled with the terms of this unfamiliar field, much of it goes over our head because we are not “in the know” and lack the training that makes this language powerful, meaningful, and straight to the point. What this means is that one person’s jargon is another’s daily vocabulary; the difference between is a factor of familiarity.
So, when something you read is jargon laden, it just means that the writer is using terms that are outside of your training.
However, this is the innocent view that comes with bluebirds, elves, and talking teacups — and very often a song. There are some dark sides to jargon that we need to consider in a business context. It is misused to make the most of the insider/outsider dynamic that is inherent in vocabulary specific to one discipline or another. These misuses are sadly common and actually prevent good work from flourishing because they are either a way to reject what a group of specialists say or to hide the flaws in a bad piece of work.
The first is a usually a client-side problem where jargon is used as a reason to reject an idea or an argument. The other is more universal and is a deliberate misuse of terms in order to sound smart and close down the conversation by shutting someone out entirely. Both of these are terrible and are major problems when trying to present good research, in any context, business or academic.
So, how do you manage jargon and its misuses to preserve real research or any good work?
Misuse #1 — Confusion and Aggression
This may have happened to you already. Imagine this scenario. You are presenting the results of a research study or a strategic evaluation, and you have to explain some pretty difficult ideas. You have spent several weeks working on making these ideas “bite-sized” or “simple” for your audience’s digestion. You may have even spent a lot of time and effort building elaborate visual models so people can understand something “at a glance.” But because the ideas are difficult, you have to use a few words that you know are going to be a little challenging.
Then, after the presentation is underway, a hand goes up and someone says, “I’m afraid I don’t understand. Can you be clearer?” You shift and try to keep explaining it in a number of alternate ways, hoping to help this person understand more clearly. But their face hardens despite your best attempts.
The hand goes up again. “I’m sorry but I’m confused…..”
This is followed by a pause clearly intended to heighten the drama. You brace yourself for the inevitable clichés and take a breath to prepare for what comes next.
“I’m sorry, but this is really academic. I don’t see the relevance of this. What do you mean by Taylorism, or sufficiency, or experience? You know, I really wish you would translate this into words that real people can understand. Just, you know, take these words and translate them into something that is clearer.”
At this point, you have to search for an answer to this eternal question. But it is always impossible. How do you handle a statement like this? Inevitably, self-doubt takes over. Have you really used too many big words? Have these big words obscured what you mean? Are you actually a charlatan? Or is this person pointing out something deeper that you should be horrified and embarrassed about? You stand. You sweat. You say something mildly apologetic and you continue knowing that you may have lost your audience.
This scenario is a pastiche of several real situations. It represents a tragically real problem in the life of a researcher working in business. And this is not really a problem with words, but with communication and the reception of your ideas. What is always so shocking in these situations is that they normally happen in an innovation setting when you are trying to introduce something new to a client who has not had to deal with the input of real human beings (e.g. their customers). The conversation in these moments is about jargon, but it is not really about jargon. It is about a fear of new things. In these cases, this person has isolated the words as the problem, when what is going in is an unwillingness to accept something new. Unless the researcher in this situation really did use unnecessary terms, this is a cry of “jargon!” with the hope of closing out the ideas. This person is claiming that these new terms are jargon as an excuse to tune out the ideas behind them.
The simple solution is not to avoid specific language, but to expect the accusation of “jargon!” explain your terms as you go. Largely this response is borne out of a lack of familiarity on the receiver’s side. This does not mean they’re stupid, but just means that they are unused to this vocabulary or are unaware of the deep history and tradition of these terms. Be the antidote for this and help them learn more than the insights require. They’ll be better off in the long run and you will have a new working language to use together.
Misuse #2 — Smoke and Mirrors
How many times have you heard your consultants drop the name of what turns out to be an academic theory into the middle of an important presentation that neither you nor anyone on your team is familiar with? You know, everything is progressing well in a working session on project insights when, suddenly, the discussion about consumers, patients or users gets muddled by talk of Actor Network Theory or some other similarly arcane reference.
Usually, this occurs for one of two reasons. The first (and less detrimental to your organization) is when those consultants want to look smarter than they really are. This is par for the course. Most consultants want to shine in front of their clients to keep the work (and the billable hours) flowing. Many will do whatever it takes to achieve this, including the use of fancy phrases that nobody in the room understands — often including the consultants themselves. You know that’s the case when someone on client-side pipes up and asks the presenter to explain the word or phrase. And when the response is silence or stumbling, you know you’ve hired bullshitters.
Considering the importance of gleaning insights about your consumers, patients or users as your organization’s means of making key decisions about business opportunities, the second reason should be far more worrisome to you: your consultants are using the fancy words to gloss over the sad reality that their insights aren’t really that insightful. Maybe that’s because their methods, methodology or approach are flawed or because you’ve hired a firm that doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to cultivate insights. Either way, pulling phrases out of Wikipedia without having an understanding of them as well as an appreciation for how they are relevant to the business in question is a crime bigger than thinking Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is relevant to anything. (It’s not).
Perhaps equally as troublesome as the arcane theory name thrown into a presentation is the word or phrase that is familiar but completely misused — and thus, misunderstood — by your consultants. Case in point: ‘ritual.’ How many times have you heard innovation consultants use the word ritual to regale you with accounts of consumers shopping for your product (as a ritual), opening a package (as a ritual), preparing or consuming your product (as a ritual)? Guess what? These are frequent, repeated or habitual actions. But they are not rituals. Ritual requires transformation, big or small, and it’s sad to say that nothing about your product is nearly monumental enough to anyone or to any usage context to suggest transformation. Your clients use this word to stroke your ego. The more you fail to question its use, the more you deserve to be tricked into the complacency of your brand’s importance.
Remember: no matter how complex the issue or deep the insights, good consultants should communicate clearly and authentically. Keep your bullshit detectors on 10.
Questions to Ask:
Misuse #1 — Questions for your Client/Audience
What is it you don’t understand?
Is it the idea or the term that is confusing you?
Can I explain the term for you?
Misuse #2 — Questions for your consultant
What does this theory provide me that is relevant for our work?
What are the sources for this theory?
What is the intellectual history of this idea? Who uses it? Who is working to prove it is right? Who is arguing against it?
Is it necessary for us to understand it more deeply before we continue?
Written by Dr. Morgan Gerard and Dr. Paul Hartley