The following article cites a study that says that people are more likely to think you’re lying if you use abstract language rather than concrete terms and phrasing. Comment on the argument being made. Do you agree?
Of course, some jargon is helpful. The military’s vast system of acronyms and code words and lingo, while difficult for anyone without a uniform to understand, helps to create a common language for an organization that has a truly unique set of technology, processes and hierarchies and that needs a way to communicate about them. Likewise, the shorthand used by doctors and nurses in a hospital helps to make quick decisions, prevent errors, and work efficiently in an environment where life and death are on the line.
But in most cases, leaders who say we need to ‘cut some capacity’ when what they really mean is firing people, or who talk about ‘incentivizing’ employees instead of just simply motivating them, are using such language for no other reason than to veil what they really mean. To me, people who use such lingo are either trying to avoid actually speaking the painful thing they have to do, or trying to make it sound like what they’re doing is more complicated – and therefore worth more in terms of reward or promotional opportunity – than it really is.
Sometimes it’s intentional, other times it’s not. Even leaders with good intentions who have some respect for the English language and would prefer not to mangle it by saying ‘pain point’ instead of ‘problem’ find themselves falling into the trap of saying they need to ‘synergize’ instead of ‘work together,’ if for no better reason than to fit in with their colleagues. Some of it is harmless, though horrible to listen to. But if it makes the people you work with (or worse, who work for you) think you’re not telling the truth, it could be more hazardous than previously believed.