How to Fix Corporate America’s Initialism Challenge?

Many are suffering from corporate cognitive overload.

This is in part due to all of the alphabet soup that is swirling around: ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), GHGs (Greenhouse Gases), SDGs (UN Sustainability Development Goals), COP(27) (Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC # ); TFCD (Task Force for Climate Disclosure), TFND (Task Force for Nature Disclosure), and The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) for instance. All are important for the TBL (Triple Bottom Line)…oops, I did it again…another case of initialism.

All of the aforementioned cases of initialism do house important objectives and scientific knowledge within their frameworks, existing within a common ethos that transverses every aspect of industry and commerce — a sustainability framework. However, the use of initialism adds levels of complexity to the human process of cognition and our practice of systems management for complex systems. As a result, important and nuanced narratives that exist within the core of such frameworks can become subject to dilution.

Looking at Business and Organizational Frameworks Through a Different Lens

Systems thinking and strong communication strategies serve as an important elixir for the over seasoning of initialism. After all, the alphabet soup needs to be digestible for optimal adoption and application of such important frameworks. Correct?

This brief exploration employs a Liberal Arts Approach (disciplines including anthropology, history, psychology, and encompassing the humanities) to investigate initialism’s role and influence upon modern business and organizational frameworks, such as the aforementioned samplings of initialisms.

As a literary deconstruction process, initialism is fairly new in the context of the English language. So, from a cognitive space, we are swimming in newer complex waters.

The first usage of initialism can be found in 1844, when The Christian’s Monthly Magazine and Universal Review issued an articled that abbreviated the Latin phrase “Senatus Populusque Romanus” (The Senate and People of Rome) to “SPQR.” A more contemporary, example of initialism is “www” (the world wide web). Yet, that case is undergoing a technological and cultural transition, forming a new textual identity as “Web3.” Adding some visual meat to its textual presentation.

Incidences of initialism often gets confused with acronyms. Yet, the two are different. Acronyms are formed by weaving together either the first letters from a collection of words, or textual segments from a collection of words, to form a new pronounceable word. Generally, such words represents either an entity, location, or concept.

In the English language, the first use of an acronym was created by Walter P. Phillips for the United Press Association. In 1879, as a means to shorten the telegraphic code for a message, he issued the acronym, “SCOTUS,” as opposed to transmitting the full name of “Supreme Court of the United States.” Other examples of acronyms included “NASA” (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration), “NoLita” (North of Little Italy), and “ASAP” (As soon as possible).

Putting the Language of Business into Action

One can pronounce acronyms, which stitch together words, like a condensed sentence. However, one can not pronounce cases of initialism. Both acronyms and initialism are forms of mnemonic devices that use abbreviation. Yet, the latter appears to be an anomaly, in the context and nature of “language.” In many cases, it creates an abstract sequence of letters, to represent a collection of words, yet does not distinctively relay an entity, location, or concept. Initialism begs further explanation and definition.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “Language” to be:

“The words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community.”

Within this context, initialism does not contribute to the purpose and function of language Technically, they are not a words. It is abstraction, a collection of words out of sequence.

Upon reflection of a literary work, during her 1993 Nobel Prize lecture, author Toni Morrison rendered the purpose of language as so:

“So I choose to read the bird as language and the woman as a practiced writer…Being a writer she thinks of language partly as a system, partly as a living thing over which one has control, but mostly as agency — as an act with consequences.”

“The vitality of language lies in its ability to limn the actual, imagined and possible lives of its speakers, readers, writers. ”

“…we do language. That may be the measure of our lives.”

So, if we do language, and if initialism has the tendency to dilute, liquifying the meaning of words that are used in a given language, if not reinforced, are we doing and giving justice to the essence of the meaning of the collection of words it represents?

Instead of doing language, are we inherently creating confusion instead? Are we doing the quick fix when more nuance and substance is necessary? Have such words taken on different context, from which they were initially created?

In an article for PsychologicalScience.org, entitled, “Alienating the Audience: How Abbreviations Hamper Scientific Communication,” the authors metaphorically linked guidance provided by a American Psychological Association’s publication manual, which advised “to maximize clarity, use abbreviations sparingly, ” to that of food pyramid guidelines. The parallel they rendered, “Just as fats, oils, and sweets provide very little in the way of actual nutrition, so do abbreviations provide very little in the way of actual information.”

The authors’ solution for resolve, always spell out abbreviations.

Yes. There’s a degree of relatively quick recall when one utilizes cases of initialism. As a creative who has to design copy, I get that word count is a thing. However, examples such as ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), GHGs (Greenhouse Gases), SDGs (UN Sustainability Development Goals) serve as grand umbrellas/frameworks that are applicable to every sector of industry, workforces, and labor markets. This is why it is important to that such frameworks be communicated effectively. We may need to start adding more copy to the mix so that people can better understand the framework. Otherwise, many interpretations and versions can take shape and have the potential to lose their original meaning, a language lost.

Yes, when it comes to following a recipe — framework — there is some room for modifications here and there. However, it is another thing to add sugar to the mix when a recipe actually calls for salt.

(This article originally was published on LinkedIn, on October 22, 2022, as part of my pieces written for LinkedIn’s U.S. Creator Accelerator Program: Technology and Innovation Cohort)