Down with exclusionary jargon, up with clear communication!

Recently, I overheard* a conversation between some Government of Canada folks complaining about people who use the "wrong" acronyms to refer to some specific government concepts. There was lots of head shaking and someone suggested that people using the undesireable abbreviations be shot out of a cannon. The conversation was definitely entered into light heartedly, but it stuck with me because it highlights one aspect of the public service that I've been thinking about lately: our tendency to be insular in our language, and the opportunity to make better connections through more accessible communication.

The same issue also occurred to me recently when I tweeted info on a job opening that included the terms AS-03, NCR, & DGO. I know what those things all mean and lots of my audience does too, but as I was pressing 'send' I thought about my non-public-servant followers and how alienating and unintelligible that message would be.

Jargon can serve a purpose:

• Useful shorthand for complex concepts. Especially relevant in a specialized or technical field.
• Building community. Shared language is one sign of a shared identity. I more easily appear part of the group if I know how to speak like the group does.
• Asserts authority. Used correctly, jargon can demonstrate that you're knowledgeable in a particular field.

Yet each of these potential benefits has pitfalls:

• Assumes a common understanding. Remember the joke about what assume spells? Even within the public service there can be a variety of terms for the same concept (see, for example, cost centre manager vs budget centre manager vs signing authority). So even when we have substantial common ground - both being public servants - it's possible the person I'm talking to doesn't actually recognize my particular term.
• It excludes as much - or more - than it includes. If we sit around laughing at the concept of not knowing what a TPS report is, we've just made it hard for Jimmy at the end of the table to ask the question. And even if he politely laughs along, Jimmy certainly doesn't feel brought into the group.
• Jargon can sound more like hot air than authority. We all know that person that uses big words when simple ones would do. You know, the one where everyone rolls their eyes while that person spews bull---- [pdf]. Who wants to be that guy? Not me.

Sometimes we aren't even aware of how much jargon we use, often because our colleagues use it too. Here's a handy way to test yourself: discuss a work topic with someone in a different government department or a different specialty. How many terms or acronyms did you have to translate? Or discuss it with a twelve year old kid. Did you have to significantly adjust your vocabulary?

Do you really need to say "Section 34 manager" or is "signing authority" enough? Is it important to say "PPAO" or can you just say "the policy team"? Etc. Once you start asking yourself these questions, you will notice it everywhere.

I'm in favour of reducing how much we use jargon, so we can include more people in our conversations and our thinking. With a bit of effort, we can make these changes. It's worth the effort. 

PS - if you're interested in thinking more about jargon-as-organizational-behaviour, check out the article "Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit in organizations"[pdf].

* full disclosure: the conversation was on Twitter, but the specific people/conversation aren't the point. It could have been anyone -- heck, it's possible I've participated in similar conversations in the past. I'm not looking to shame anyone or single them out, only to reflect on the choices we make and where there's an opportunity to make better ones.