Voices of UX
The problem with corporate jargon
Are corporate language best practices future-proofing your core values, or are they causing set-backs that disable a frictionless user experience?
I know, I know. Loaded subtitle. Kind of difficult to understand, and vaguely annoying. You may prefer the “living, breathing human” translation: What’s the deal with corporate jargon?
Instead of talking like real people, we’re seeing more and more individuals and organizations begin to speak like encrypted corporate computers. It’s no longer “we need to boost sales.” Now, it’s “We need to optimize our conversion rates in a way that aligns with our core values.”
Your initial reaction might be that the second option is just more professional. But is it, really? Or have we been conditioned to associate unnecessary complexity with professionalism?
Nevertheless, there’s a problem with the way we communicate in professional settings. What began as abbreviating terms like “quarter four” and “point of sale” has transformed over time into an exclusionary vocabulary that’s being overused, misused, and even weaponized. Corporate jargon has weaseled its way into meetings, interviews, public statements, marketing and advertising… and it may even be leaking into your UI.
Here’s why that’s a bad thing, and how you can stop it.
Barrier to entry
Before I entered the workforce, business-speak made me feel as if I’d never be able to work in a corporate setting. I felt like I didn’t have the script that everyone else was reading from. This was particularly true during interviews. I was fortunate enough to have people in my life who were willing to do mock interviews with me before the real thing — but those terrified me even more. It often went something like this:
Interviewer: What skills will you bring to this position?
Me: Well, I think I’m excellent at organizational tasks, I have strong written communication skills, [insert other qualities here].
Interviewer: Stop there. Never say “I think”. In an interview, you’re marketing yourself. No one wants to hear “I think this is a good product”, they want to hear “this is the most amazing product ever, and here’s why.”
While there is some merit to this advice, it’s not 100% accurate. Confidence can take you a long way, but when you’re interviewing, you’re not selling a product. What’s really happening is a conversation between two human beings. A big part of that conversation is “are you capable of doing this job”, but there’s another major component: “can I tolerate working with you on a daily basis?”
As a self-admitted Super Awkward Person™, introducing myself as the most amazing, qualified person in the world was not on the table. Not only did I question whether that statement would be off-putting to a potential employer, but I foresaw working with a bunch of people who weren’t off-put by that statement being off-putting to me.
I worried that the approach would come with a lack of communication due to each individual being stubbornly confident in their own opinions. Now, is that actually true? I can’t say, because there are a lot of different answers to that question:
- Yes, it’s true because companies stick to and live by the corporate script.
- No, it’s not true because people only use the script in interviews and meetings.
- It’s neither true nor untrue, because you can’t tell what an organization’s culture is truly like based solely on an interview.
But, that’s my first point: Sticking to a script strips people of their individuality and makes it impossible to understand whether or not a company’s culture is a good fit until you’re already employed there. It’s used as a masking technique, a way to pad empty messages, and it’s a barrier to entry.
Enter the secret passcode
Let’s circle back to that “barrier to entry” statement. The corporate script isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s non-inclusive.
None of us are born understanding the jargon, but there’s a lucky, typically wealthy, subset of people who learn it from family and friends before they’re under the pressure of job applications, interviews, and onboarding. The rest of hopeful applicants? They don’t get the script until they’re already trying to get their foot in the door, which can make it feel like the door is slamming shut.
Maybe you had a similar experience, but you eventually learned the jargon and started using it yourself. Now, it’s ingrained in your vocabulary despite your distaste for it.
Well, good news — it’s not just you. Most of the people who use the jargon also hate it. This simmering distaste can rise to a boil, and we can dismantle the corporate script in a massive coup…
Well, maybe not. But we can ask ourselves: Why are we using these exclusionary terms if everyone hates them?
Lying in plain sight
Here’s one answer: obscure corporate jargon is a great manipulation tactic.
When the average person can’t understand what you’re saying, you can say anything you want. Just like information hidden within lengthy terms and conditions documents, you can hide distasteful information behind the veil of professionalism. Take this clip of Jack Abramoff, for example, where he explains how he hid major corrupt bill amendments in plain sight using accurate, yet misleadingly boring and technical, language.
Alternatively, you can say a lot of words while really saying nothing at all. For example, using biz-speak to hide the fact that you didn’t complete an assignment. “We’re reconvening in Q4 to reconsider the proposal, because it’s currently out of scope” sounds a lot better than “We forgot that you asked us to do that, so we’ll throw something together next month.”
This language can be so meaningless that a computer could generate it, and no one would be able to tell the difference. Which reminds me… check out the Corporate Gibberish Generator.
Similarly, corporate jargon can make it hard to wrap your head around a product’s actual features until you’ve already made the leap and paid for it. This padding technique is commonly used in marketing, and at that point, it’s only a matter of time before…
Ah! It’s in the UI!
…it begins to leak in and poison your user interface.
Chances are, your product has users from a ton of different backgrounds. They may or may not be as experienced, speak the same first language, or process information in the same way as you. If you’re not accounting for all of your users, your UX design isn’t effective, and you aren’t going to reach as wide of an audience as you potentially could.
That’s important because user experience is all about, well, users. Given the near-universal dislike of unnecessary jargon and complexity, chances are your user would also appreciate some clarity. Words like “frictionless” and “sustainable narrative” probably don’t appear in your UI (at least, I hope they don’t), but other forms of jargon might slip by.
Here are some common things to look out for when reviewing your user interface:
- Obscure acronyms
- Terms that you’re familiar with because you work closely with a product, but that a new user might not understand
- Repetitive or filler words in descriptions, headers, popovers, and other ‘helper texts’
The complicated part of this is that keeping jargon out of your UI isn’t a hard-and-fast rule. There’s a time and a place for it. However, useful jargon typically falls under the “technical” category as opposed to the “corporate”. For example, in the tech realm, people have come up with all sorts of phrases that summarize the complex steps they’re taking to get stuff done. Near-universal phrases include “bug” and “plugin”, but there are plenty of terms that just aren’t typical enough to include in your UI.
So what is appropriate to include?
When in doubt, ask yourself this: Are you using a term to simplify something complex or lengthy, and is it common enough that your entire audience will understand it? If it’s a universal phrase used to summarize something complicated, it’s a go. If it’s a buzz-word, it’s not.
That’s a wrap
Believe it or not, I don’t think corporate jargon is always bad. Some perfectly useful phrases get on people’s nerves simply because they’re used so often: Q3, ping, API, and all of the other acronyms that we use to avoid repeating lengthy phrases over and over again. We don’t need to stop using those words just because they’re common pet peeves.
What we do need to do is make sure that the way we communicate is meaningful and inclusive of our entire audience. Everyone comes from a different background, which means that translating corporate-speak into plain language is sometimes difficult. It can be hard to decipher between which messages actually mean something, which ones are just filler, and which ones are intentionally deceitful.
All of this to say that unnecessary corporate jargon isn’t only harmful to internal collaboration and communication. It can also be a deterrent when someone is viewing your advertisements, sitting down for an interview, or trying to navigate your UI.
Let’s acknowledge that speaking in code is exhausting, and make a conscious effort to talk like real, breathing humans.
Have a story of your own? Write with us! Our community thrives on diverse voices — let’s hear yours.
