Workplace Jargon Hurts Employee Morale and Collaboration, Study Finds (phys.org) 147
alternative_right shares a report from Phys.org: You've probably heard it before in a meeting: 'Let's touch base offline to align our bandwidth on this workflow.' Corporate jargon like this is easy to laugh at -- but its negative impact in the office can be serious. According to a new study, using too much jargon in the workplace can hurt employees' ability to process messages, leading them to experience negative feelings and making them feel less confident. In turn, they're less likely to reach out and ask for or share information with their colleagues.
"You need people to be willing to collaborate, share ideas and look for more information if they don't understand something at work," said Olivia Bullock, Ph.D., an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. "And jargon might actually be impeding that information flow across teams." Age made a difference, though. Older workers had a harder time processing jargon, but were more likely to intend to ask for more information to clarify the message. Younger employees were less likely to seek and share information when confused by jargon. "It gives credence to the idea that younger people are more vulnerable to these workplace dynamics," Bullock said. "If you're onboarding younger employees, explain everything clearly." The findings have been published in the International Journal of Business Communication.
"You need people to be willing to collaborate, share ideas and look for more information if they don't understand something at work," said Olivia Bullock, Ph.D., an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. "And jargon might actually be impeding that information flow across teams." Age made a difference, though. Older workers had a harder time processing jargon, but were more likely to intend to ask for more information to clarify the message. Younger employees were less likely to seek and share information when confused by jargon. "It gives credence to the idea that younger people are more vulnerable to these workplace dynamics," Bullock said. "If you're onboarding younger employees, explain everything clearly." The findings have been published in the International Journal of Business Communication.
Nonsense, Negative Nellies (Score:5, Funny)
These naysaying nattering nabobs of negativism just need to get with the program, shift some paradigms, let collaboration flow freely (in person, of course), and start giving 110%!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense, Negative Nellies (Score:5, Funny)
and start giving 110%!
I would love to but I'm will waiting on that 110% pay. Everyone should take a pay positive attitude because we're worth it, right? Hello? Are you still there?
Re:Nonsense, Negative Nellies (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation of the article: "If you talk gibberish, people may not understand you".
Of course, that may be the speaker's intention.
Re: (Score:3)
Often that is the speaker's intention. This is why each company uses a unique internal name for the same programs every other company has instead of using generic common names for the functionality. Sales monkey's and execs especially love to have jargon for everything... it makes outsiders and newcomers look clueless while masking the lack of actual knowledge justifying their status and position.
Re: Nonsense, Negative Nellies (Score:2)
That's one reason, but there is also that the execs and managers want to look busy.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you talk gibberish, people may not understand you..." the older ones will ask you WTF you're talking about and the younger ones will just hate you silently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The perfect statement on this is provided by Weird Al Yankovich Mission Statement [youtube.com].
You know what's worse ? (Score:2)
The one that disconnects my brain the fastest is "digital(e)". "Communication digitale", "n'importe quoi digital"
They take the English word "digital", and they use it without translation, either "digital" or "digitale" depending on the genre.
Instead of "numérique".
But I cannot help to understand the French meaning of "digital(e)", more often linked to fingers
And especial
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"digital" is a Latin word. The French, a Romance language, took it directly, and then English borrowed it from French.
Well, one could argue the French influences on English were less "borrowed" and more "imposed".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
should wonder, why the English language uses the French word "digital" instead of the English "fingerwise"
In both cases it's through "number"
English: digit (number) ---> "digital"
French: numéro (nombre) ---> "numérique"
I think the OP was not complaining about English, but how French use "digital" as a meaningless but fashionable buzzword in meetings.
(I'm not sure to agree with the point, I'm just passing the message.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the French care?
Re: You know what's worse ? (Score:2)
At least it's not cyber or that other relic, forward slash.
Better yet, don't use buzzwords. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Let's touch base offline to align our bandwidth on this workflow." isn't jargon, it's buzzwords. It just translates to "Let's meet after this and make sure you understand how I want that to work.". Just use the ordinary English instead of the buzzwords. A lot of the "confusion" is probably the employees thinking "Just speak English, dumbass.".
Jargon has specific meanings that can't be quickly expressed in plain English. "hack" vs. "kludge" for example. Both have implications beyond the basic "solution to a problem" that take several sentences in English to state clearly but represent things you need to identify often enough that you can't readily spell it out in full every single time. Others, like "mis-bug" (as in "This is a mis-bug, clarify the code and docs so someone doesn't accidentally fix it.") are jargon but the plain English terms are simple enough you ought to use them most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that means that words have a very specific meaning within that group, which is usually not understood outside of that group. And that is also true for "bandwidth", which in this context does not mean the actual width of a ribbon, but the collective manpower of the team addressed in this speech. Y
Re:Better yet, don't use buzzwords. (Score:5, Informative)
Both are jargons for the purposes of being nonstandard or very locally standardized usages within a particular group; but when people say 'buzzwords' there's a specific pejorative implication, while 'jargon' is usually implied to be legitimate and useful at least within its subject area.
Obviously legitimacy claims, rather than linguistic ones, make the boundary a bit fuzzy; but there are some tells. A jargon term(in the positive/legitimate sense) tends to go places: if someone doing analog signal processing says 'bandwidth' it may confuse ribbon enthusiasts; but it touches on a whole bunch of related concepts: bands have widths and 'wideband' and 'narrowband' are what they sound like they would be; bandpass and bandgap filters do frequency dependent attenuation in ways that either allow a particular band through or heavily attenuate a particular band. When a project manager says 'bandwidth' they mostly just mean ability to do work, with a slight extension available to say you are too busy if you don't want to say you are too busy "I don't have the bandwidth/the team doesn't have the bandwidth". If you try to extend the concept; by, say, combining the 'bandwidth' of two people you end up with The Mythical Man-Month rather than the link aggregation or NIC teaming that you'd get if you told the networking guy that you needed to eliminate a bottleneck. That's what really marks the example phrase as 'buzzword'. You've got a metaphor drawn from baseball that barely even makes sense in the context of the sport(people only 'touch base' if the timings on opposing teams are particularly tight); then 'offline' is at least meaningful in the context that it is drawn from; but actually kind of confusing in context(are you taking it offline because it doesn't need to be handled synchronously or by everyone in the meeting? Because you don't want it on the record? Because it doesn't require drawing on the connected resources it would have if it were online?), then you've got 'align', which is vague at best misleading at worst(is 'aligning your bandwidth' working on the same things, specifically avoiding overlap? some of both?).
That's really, beyond more or less subjective judgements that engineering and science are more respectable than suit stuff, what makes 'buzzwords' feel slimy. Unlike 'jargon', which can be obscure to the layman but tends to have lots of internal connections that are consistent and enlightening; 'buzzwords' tend to be a lot of relatively surface-level borrowings that lack internal implications and which range from merely not-illuminating to actively obfuscating.
Linguistically both are jargons in the sense of being specialized local vocabularies; but 'buzzword' tends to imply little or no useful internal consistency; more or less ad-hoc borrowing of shiny-sounding words from random places; while 'jargons' in the 'respectable' sense are quite often cryptic on the surface; but have relatively massive bodies of internal consistency within the jargon. "Touch base" is practically plain english compared to what a mathematician or a physicist means when they say "field" vs. what a farmer or someone with a lawn in the suburbs means; but it's also shallow: there's nothing illuminating about the implied analogy to baseball, there aren't any additional things to be inferred from the idea that the people touching base are members of opposing teams trying to reach the base first(indeed, that's probably actively misleading); while 'field' as the set with specific operators defined is a little esoteric; but there are large areas of math that use, and in some cases flow from, that definition.
Definition [Re:Better yet, don't use buzzwords.] (Score:2)
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dictionary.com%2Fbro... [dictionary.com] :
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
First definition is:
1: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group.
sports jargon
2nd and further definitions however, match the idea of gibberish.
I agree, this is not what I'd call jargon, I'd call it buzzwords: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen
Re: (Score:2)
Jargon has specific meanings that can't be quickly expressed in plain English.
Recently I was reading a thread on Reddit in the Amazon Vine sub about these ruby bead things, which apparently have something to do with marijuana. The thread was started by someone who'd assumed they were for some sort of arts and crafts use, and then along comes someone explaining what they actually are, and nearly the entire explanation is in incomprehensible jargon that had me thinking it may as well be a stoner version of the old Turbo encabulator skit. So of course, I had to run with that:
Introduci
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better yet, don't use buzzwords. (Score:5, Funny)
English. "hack" vs. "kludge" for example. Both have implications beyond the basic "solution to a problem" that take several sentences in English to state clearly
1. cunning solution I'm proud of
2. vile solution I'm secretly proud of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is even that. I think it is just company Kool-aid that is soul crushing. I have always been a self motivator and have excelled in my career, but when company Kool-aid stuff starts happening it makes me want to run for the hills. If people don't want to work without this stupid shit, FIRE THEM, but don't make the rest of us who are working and doing well without that crap have to partake in it. It is demeaning and insulting.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have proven the point by your apparent need to translate the phrase for us...
And I think the real point is that if, if you need to translate the phrase in your head to process it further, well, it's neither precise nor efficient. Just spit it out, eh?
And if you don't know what the 'clinker' is, well, then I have a favorite bit of jargon that isn't all that helpful either. But I use it mostly to get the hearer to ask 'what the is that?', and share a bit of trivia. Never really germane to the conversa
Not less confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies always doing things because of "environment" or "bringing people together", when it's pretty obvious that the real reason is money, or perceived control.
If there is a fake front to all communication, it starts to be meaningless.
You want genuine people who mean what they say, at least some of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an attempt to force you to love a company, a company that will show you no love or loyalty but is trying to force the same out of you and in so doing break down the barriers between your work and ho
Re: (Score:3)
You hit the nail on the head. Every quoted jargon you used above a former superintendent of mine used on us daily. It was funny at first to listen to this dumb ass but it got old real fast. Morale took a huge hit and never recovered. It was so obvious he thought he was the god amongst us.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll send you a form letter saying how 'valuable you and your contributions' are and how 'very excited we are to have you as a part of your team' while giving you a 0% raise because the monthly numbers don't look great. It gets to a point where its beyond 'fake' and starts being insulting.
Re: (Score:2)
Jargon just means you are wasting your time either hearing it or reading it.
Non-jargon version? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So... you would like to communicate at some time using some method, but not a meeting, to work out the details of some thing which may or may not be a task and determine who will be putting what work into meeting the requirements that are still to be defined as part of this communication.
In other words, let's get together later and figure everything out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to be a dick here, but "let's get together later" is just as "jargon-y" as "let's touch base offline". Who is the "Us" in "Let's"? Just me? Does Bob need to be involved? Carol? What does "get together" mean? Are we meeting? Are you calling me? Am I messaging you? When is "later"? Next week? Tomorrow? As soon as this current meeting is over?
Both statements are imprecise jargon.
Re: (Score:2)
"Touch base" means a runner in a game of baseball has to physically touch each base in order. I've always assumed it's related to "counting coup" which involves doing annoying things to an enemy to demonstrate your skill and bravery.
"Touch base with you" suggests to me you're going to put on tight pants, get nose to nose with somebody in a metal mask, and scream at each other.
My observations of office interactions support both interpretations.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to bowl you a googly, I do believe touch base is an American sports term and is just a nonsense phrase in other parts of the English speaking world.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a metaphor you need to guess at in everything except baseball. Sometimes the metaphor is fairly clear to the listener. Other times it's only clear to (at most) the speaker.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's nothing to do with capture-the-flag in paintball? What a disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, I've never played paintball. That might be a synonymous derivation...or perhaps in that context it has a different meaning. If people are understanding it from different original metaphors, it's likely to mean (slightly?) different things to different people. E,g,, I could have derived it from titrating from an acid down to a base, and that would have LOTS of different associated meanings, even though the "touch" part would mean (metaphorically) the same thing.
The worst (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the worst term I've ever heard is Non Functional Requirements (NFRs)
"Non" means the opposite, so the opposite of functional is stuff that doesn't work. I have a non-functional bridge to sell you, a non-car (no engine, no wheels), a non-profit (there's no profit), a non-smoker, non-existent.
Also, function is much broader in meaning, it's how one thing relates to another (a function of), an assigned role (perform the functions), what something's purpose is, and a sequence of steps. Creating compatibility is actually a purpose, for example.
Hence everything is related to function. To claim that some things can be labelled properties and hence "other" than functions, is brain-dead. An audit trail is not a property as opposed to a function, something has to actually do the function and purpose of auditing. Efficiency isn't an NFR, the system probably won't even work if it isn't sufficiently efficient, like the structure of a bridge. Accessibility isn't the opposite of function nor unrelated to function -- you literally have to change a lot of things and how they work, to provide accessibility.
The term Non-Functional Requirements is brain damage, as it implies you can just separate out all that "other" stuff to a separate category. Much better terms could be used. As a term it adds nothing. It's a non-term.
Re:The worst (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, they would be "function non-requirements". To me, "functional requirement" means they require a "requirement" to perform: A bit like a genie granting 3 wishes. Alas, man-made machines don't grant wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
If I require a function, it is a functional requirement.
If I require something without function, it's a non functional requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
So, they would be "function non-requirements".
That is somehow exponentially worse than "non-functional requirement". I interpret that as a "would be nice to have" type of requirements around how a device is supposed to function. This potato peeler needs to peel potatoes in order to be called a potato peeler, but it would be great if it also handled carrots.
Re:The worst (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's only because you define the color as not having any function.
Actually, color does do something. It communicates meaning. It has a certain amount of visibility. To the extent it communicates danger, prestige, warning, etc., it's signalling bystanders to get out of the way, to let the pros perform their work, etc. that's performing a needed function. Maybe you could choose yellow instead, but red is the standard meaning, so red works.
This is why I don't like "NFR" -- it implies you can separate one set of things into "functions" but actually, all the other things are partly about doing something as well. In fact, we often wonder about features in nature, like Zebra stripes, and look for what function they perform.
Re: (Score:2)
> color does do something
Yes. But in this case, the color RED does NOT. You may recall that a couple of decades ago, there was a flirtation with making fire trucks and other emergency vehicles a certain shade of yellow-green that looked like you just drank a glass of Nickelodeon slime, chased it with a florescent highlighter's innards, and then vomited the whole mess back up. But that color wasn't random. Actual studies were done. And that neon green puke color is actually MORE visible to the human
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen green firetrucks in Arizona, specifically Tucson. More of a yellow-green, but green nevertheless.
(I didn't read the comment you were replying to, sorry)
Re: The worst (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Non" means the opposite, so the opposite of functional is stuff that doesn't work... a non-profit (there's no profit)
That example doesn't fit your definition. The opposite of "profit" is "loss", so by your definition, a non-profit is an organization that is designed to lose money.
In fact, that example is exactly the same usage as "non-functional requirement". It doesn't use "non" to mean "opposite of", it uses "non" to mean "lack of".
Re: (Score:2)
Aha, thanks, now I don't like the term nonprofit either!!
Re: (Score:2)
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force as implying mere negation or absence of something (rather than the opposite or reverse of it, as often expressed by un-)
Re: (Score:2)
The dictionary I looked at didn't include "absence", but fair enough.
I don't think it gets in the way of the broader point which is that things termed non functional requirements actually do include function.
Re: (Score:2)
A nonfunctional requirement is a requirement that does affect the functioning of the delivered system from the user's perspective. You could satisfy it any number of ways while still accomplishing the actions specified by the user's or customer's use case. E.g., what color to make the submit button, what's the point size of the H1 element? The customer may specify these things, and care very deeply about them, but the system would continue to operate just fine in their absence.
Many system requirements fall
Re: (Score:2)
The way someone explained it to me was that "functional" refers to the reason(s) why the system exists. What result is the user or customer trying to achieve? A non-functional requirement is something that the system needs to make it possible or practical to meet a functional requirement, but that would be of no use on its own. A system for administering loans needs an audit trail to comply with the law and to detect and prevent fraud, but there would be no point in having an audit trail on its own.
On the o
Re: (Score:2)
The way someone explained it to me was that "functional" refers to the reason(s) why the system exists. What result is the user or customer trying to achieve? A non-functional requirement is something that the system needs to make it possible or practical to meet a functional requirement, but that would be of no use on its own. A system for administering loans needs an audit trail to comply with the law and to detect and prevent fraud, but there would be no point in having an audit trail on its own.
On the other hand, from the point of view of someone in the audit team, being able to audit the accounts is a functional requirement. Maybe everything is a functional requirement to somebody.
Yes, think this is it. There can be a requirement that the system show a catalogue, handle ordering, do stock control, and handle customer feedback, but there's also requirements for legal reasons, card processing security rules, internationalisation, accessibility, branding, colour schemes to suit the current fashions, deployment workflows, requirements for disaster recovery, architectural good practice requirements, etc. etc., and they all have to "work" in the broad sense of the word.
So what benefit is t
Re: (Score:2)
You could well be right :-) I've noticed that names tend to stick, even as the thing that the name refers to changes, so that the name doesn't really fit any more. One example that comes to mind is RAM versus ROM. RAM is random-access memory
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously there is a desire where you work to separate out the requirements that dictate what something should "do" vs requirements that describe different aspects of an end product. What would you call a requirement like "The house must be blue with white trim"? The house doesn't need to be blue/white in order to function correctly. Certainly a red/green house would meet the "The house must keep me and my possessions dry" requirement, but would not meet the overall desires of the client.
"Non-functiona
Someone needs to be told ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How do I know you didn't really send it in utf-8?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt being told they are stupid will move the dial on their buzzword use.
It is used to hide meaning and incompetence... (Score:2)
When I hear someone talking like that they usually are trying to increase their importance and hide incompetence.
They just have actually nothing to say so they inflate their speech so it is seems more important.
For Enterprise-Lexicon-Only Stakeholder... (Score:5, Funny)
Team, quick pulse-check: the latest peer-reviewed insight artifact flags a material comms drag. Over-indexing on synergy-speak is creating cognitive latency, negative sentiment, and outreach suppression across swimlanes. Older cohorts will raise a clarify ticket; early-career ICs hard-mute, spawning dark workstreams and orphaned knowledge. Net-net: excessive buzzword bandwidth is sand in the gears of our value creation engine and a blocker to KPI attainment.
Proposed operating model uplift (low lift, high ROI, immediate path to green):
1) Spin up a Plain-English-as-a-Platform capability as our single source of truth. Owner: Comms PMO. KPI: comprehension delta at UAT.
2) Implement a jargon lint gate in the authoring pipeline. SLA: 24h. Exit criteria: readability score >= target, glossary hits
3) Institutionalize a Pause-and-Translate interlock in live forums. Trigger: 2+ tier-1 buzzwords per sentence. Action: convert to human-speak in under 15 seconds
4) Onboarding enablement: micro-sprint on legacy acronym detox. Sunset any term failing the 5-second recall test. If it needs a glossary, it is comms tech debt.
5) Post-mortems: tag miscommunication as a root cause with before/after artifacts. Feed the learnings back into the lint gate as guardrails.
6) Leadership behaviors: model clarity-first narratives. If your all-hands is a buzzword salad, you are shipping confusion-as-a-service.
North Star: ship clarity. Treat human-readable language as core platform infra. Everything else is undifferentiated word soup wearing a KPI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
"Team, quick pulse-check"
45.
"..."
Now 110.
Buzzword (Score:2)
How do I translate this into a real-world noun?
"Bandwidth" means, rou
Re: (Score:2)
But, Sega has Blast Processing!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they thought that "aligning our pipes" would make women in the workplace feel left out?
Re: (Score:2)
Reply in jive (Score:3)
Let's see who can keep up longer.
There are useless jargons and useful jargons (Score:2)
We have useless management jargons designed to mislead and confuse, like "right-sizing", "let go", "efficiency", "synergize", "leverage", etc. Which really means very common words but created to make very mundane ideas sounded grand. Yes, absolutely agree these jargons hurt morale and collaboration, good luck trying to get management to change this practice.
Then there are useful technical jargons that actually means something and communicate a lot of information quickly. These HELPED collaboration among
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have useless management jargons designed to mislead and confuse, like "right-sizing", "let go", "efficiency", "synergize", "leverage", etc. Which really means very common words but created to make very mundane ideas sounded grand. Yes, absolutely agree these jargons hurt morale and collaboration, good luck trying to get management to change this practice.
The managers, certainly the ones using this jargon a lot, will all be marketing people. Marketing is basically all about using various things including language to make your product seem as impressive as it can be, most likely to make it seem more impressive than it is in reality. This is basically same marketing, but used to sell themselves, to try and give themselves a superficial appearance of being hypercompetent and super professional. Basically 'I'm using a lot of big words, that means I'm smart'. Aft
Re: (Score:2)
Practical terms will be made up to refer to a specific subset of something that a layman doesn't care about (niche nerd crap) but is relevant in the field and benefits from shorthand.
Obligatory https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F1095%2F [xkcd.com]
The best jargon is intuitively understood (no one should need "paint yourself into a corner" explained) most can be spotted with context (esp by someone competent, yes) but a few are obtuse enough that you can't really expect people to immediately grok it.
That extra word being key, since today y
Say that in English (Score:3)
Sophisticated (Score:2)
Workplace Jargon a good tactic sidelining people (Score:2)
Workplace Jargon a good tactic sidelining people who are too expensive to make redundant
Antidote (Score:2)
I've found Buzzword Bingo cards an effective tool to get the message across.
Jargon covers it all up. (Score:2)
I explicitly refuse to use jargon when there are other options. Some consider me stupid for this, most people do not mind, and a lot appreciate it. Just be authentic. Warts and all. People will open up. They will dare to come out in the open. Ideas will pop up. Stupid ideas, great ideas and lots and lots of mediocr
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear! I find that jargon is often used to hide ignorance and/or insecurity. I'd rather see the ignorance / insecurity; I both show and acknowledge my own ignorance and insecurity all the time. That way they can be corrected or have allowances made for them, instead of having them undermine or sabotage something that may be important.
Re: (Score:2)
Irony of using "Onboarding"? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I always hear "onboarding" as "water boarding."
Ironically, if you said "onboarding" on a boat the sailors would point at you and laugh.
is it the jargon? (Score:2)
....or the empty-head it signals?
I've found it rather useful over the years to measure from the first words out of a person's mouth whether they're worth listening to.
Last Line, a Joke? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed at the use of "onboarding" in the last quote. I hope it was a joke. Right?.
Am I the only one who immediately thinks of "waterboarding" when hearing the word "onboarding"?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Code switching (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a difference between technical jargon and corporate jargon...
Technical jargon is essentially used as a shorthand way to communicate, essentially using agreed upon terms to refer to detailed concepts which are well understood. The goal is to succinctly communicate to your technical peers in an accurate way.
Corporate jargon is a different beast entirely and the goal seems to be more to signal yourself as part of the club, especially for executives, rather than to communicate clearly. It's almo
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends.
Sometimes, it's a shorthand with concrete meaning.
Sometimes, it may have concrete meaning, but is not really any shorter than plain language, and there's a sort of elitism associated with it.
With the examples given though, this is the 'need words to say nothing' jargon. Often there's some compelling reason why the speaker *should* respond or really *wants* to speak, but either has nothing they can say or else has nothing they *should* say. Executives commonly say this. At my work there's
Not just feelings! (Score:2)
... can hurt employees' ability to process messages, leading them to experience negative feelings and making them feel less confident.
Then there are those of us whose bullshit meters peg themselves so hard that the pointer wraps itself around its end-stop as we feel disdain, and sometimes simmering rage.
I've despised what I call HR-speak since I first encountered it, and I would be oh-so-happy to watch it die in simpering whimpers, which would likely be the strongest voice it could muster.
All Industries Have Jargon (Score:2)
It's not Jargon, It's Slang (Score:2)
The title is wrong.
Jargon are words designed to be precise, and increase communication.
Corporatese is Slang. It is about reducing communication and marking insiders versus outsiders.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It's bs, vomited out of the mouth of someone who has no clue, and is trying to cover that fact.
higher ups don't care (Score:2)
Re: Uncorroborated pseudoscience hurts everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is really simple: LISTEN to your employees, and if they find this made-up-word nonsense annoying and demeaning, stop doing it.