December 3, 2009 11:43 am
We all communicate … but to what extent are we understood?
Today’s professionals increasingly operate with a variety of media and across a wide range of cultures. We deal with people from different professional backgrounds, from diffferent industries and from different countries. We regularly participate in calls and meetings where a proportion of the participants have a different native langauge. So we write and speak … but do we give sufficient thought to using terms and language that will be readily understood?
Of course, in some instances, people use ‘jargon’ quite deliberately. Traditional professions have all developed terms and language that aid efficiency in internal communication, but excludes outsiders. Alan Greenspan apparently confessed to the use of obscure terms whenever he testified to Congress.
The question that is raised in an article in Strategy+Business is whether we are good at separating ‘bad’ jargon from good. Some jargon can assist efficient and lively conversation, but we must ensure that we have considered our audience before we start to use it.
What are some of the things to watch out for?
Increasingly, we see the development of ‘new’ languages, such as abbreviations used within instant messaging, which again exclude those who are not users of such tools.
If we do not communicate effectively, not only do we run the risk of misunderstanding, but research shows that team members, participants and audiences become alienated and potentially negative to the speaker’s goals.
So communication matters – and ensuring you communicate in a way that suppports understanding is even more important.
Posted by tcummins
Categories: Contract / Commercial Management, International, Negotiation, Risk, Technology
Tags: communication, Negotiation
Mobile Site | Full Site
Get a free blog at WordPress.com Theme: WordPress Mobile Edition by Alex King.
I would welcome examples of ‘jargon’ – perhaps we can use them to build a test for IACCM members! In the hour after I made this post, I picked up 3 examples from out of office e-mails I received.
1. On OBT
2. ASAP
3. BR
I worked out what each of them meant, but English is my native language – and these e-mails all came from employees at international companies.
By tcummins on December 4, 2009 at 7:53 am
Tim – my views aren’t surprising, being a supporter of “plain English”. Industry-specific terms used internally are OK in informal situations and when it can save time. However, with presentations or meetings (even internal ones) I agree it’s alienating and a lazy way of speaking. It deadens the language and is just as boring as having to listen to someone reading from their notes. I’m shocked that someone like Alan Greenspan used jargon to confuse people when his objective should have beeng to get their understanding. No wonder the GFC happened with smoke and mirrors and obfuscation being the norm. K
By Kerrie Tarrant on December 6, 2009 at 11:16 pm