TMA – Too Many Acronyms
I had a strange encounter the other day.
A meeting with colleagues began unremarkably, the Organizer recalling updates since the last gathering.
Now normally I zone out in these interactions until I need to contribute something. They're pretty boring and anything useful is always sent as an email afterward. And it's usually more interesting to people watch.
Today however was different. We had a VIP coming. According to Mister Organizer, the supposed VIP had a major update to share. So this time I plugged in. What was the major update and why did Mister Organizer seem so on edge?
15 minutes late our VIP strolled in. She had some news from the higher ups, an update about some major organizational reshuffles planned for next month.
All good, nothing out of the ordinary so far.
"We received the IOP from Rax and now we're looking to do up-answer on minimum time locale"*
Huh?
"… We're looking to take forward the ATCP to diff the latest moment."
What the hell was she saying?
I kept trying to work out what this meant, but it wouldn't make any sense. The more I thought about it, the more I missed the next thing she said, which would be some variation on the comments above. As a result, the less and less I would understand as she kept speaking.
Usually if I don't get an acronym or some insider phrase I ask. And this resolves it. But this time sentence after sentence just didn't cohere. Nothing made any sense. I decided to clarify with colleagues after. Though it turned out I wasn't the only one clueless about Madame VIP's acronym doused monologue.
Because Madame was speaking a micro dialect.
What's a micro dialect? A form of linguistic verbiage, which emerges in organizations mired in bureaucratic technicality.
Let me elaborate.
The more complex and bureaucratic an organization becomes, the more a micro dialect forms as a means to speed up information transmission within the system. Think insider language to jump through hoops. Because the system is so complicated, explaining things properly is too tiresome.
Now we're all prone to taking little shortcuts when doing things, making decisions or speaking. Because it saves time. It takes less cognitive energy. That's something we try and do through heuristics (simplifying tools allowing us to understand things quicker).
But there's a big downside.
For starters, it can cause severe miscommunication, as in my encounter above.
Moreover, these shortcuts frequently become an excuse to avoid simplifying a complicated system, reducing bureaucracy and explaining and understanding technical issues. They represent a growing problem of complexity, to which the solution isn't taking shortcuts (reflected by language), but solving the actual problem.
I'll defer now to Elon Musk, who faced this challenge at SpaceX:**
"There is a creeping tendency to use made up acronyms at SpaceX. Excessive use of made up acronyms is a significant impediment to communication and keeping communication good as we grow is incredibly important. Individually, a few acronyms here and there may not seem so bad, but if a thousand people are making these up, over time the result will be a huge glossary that we have to issue to new employees. No one can actually remember all these acronyms and people don't want to seem dumb in a meeting, so they just sit there in ignorance. This is particularly tough on new employees."
Remember: the purpose of language is communication. If you're saying something and it isn't understood, then you're not communicating.
"The key test for an acronym is to ask whether it helps or hurts communication."***
Now I'm not saying to stop using acronyms or specific language altogether. Sometimes these clean up text, or make things flow better. If you've known someone for a while, share a sense of humour, have compatible personalities etcetera, using acronyms and insider language is fine, probably fun, and the foundation for 'inside jokes' which help us bond with and relate to others.
Sometimes you need to use acronyms, for example in medicine or the military, when life may depend on the rapid, concise transmission of information between two parties.
What I'm saying is to ensure that communication is a two way process. If that necessitates explaining things fully (and life isn't at stake) just explain them.
People don't always have the confidence to speak up (for whatever reason) and it's as much a loss to them as it is to you if they aren't understanding the point.
So I propose a rule of thumb:
If you are sitting in a room with somebody you do not know, do not assume their level of insider knowledge. Communicate the point in full.
Other steps worth taking:
- Give a forewarning of high complexity material to follow
- Tell people not to hesitate to ask questions
- If you insist on using an acronym or some insider term, give a brief explanation. This way you don't seem dumb for not using the buzzword, or condescending for overexplaining things.
You'd be surprised how much of an impact these simple steps can have.
And how easy they are.
For example:
VIP
"the higher ups"
I threw these out above without explaining. Now it's very likely you know what they mean. Just in case you don't:
VIP: Very Important Person
"the higher ups": Denotes people with greater responsibility. Termed as such to refer to decision makers who typically sit on a floor or hold a position higher than oneself.
It took three words to explain VIP. 2 sentences to explain "the higher ups". Not too difficult at all!
Finally, some words from the wise:
"If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it." Richard Feynman
And
"If you can't explain something to a 6 year old, you don't understand it yourself." Albert Einstein
If these Nobel winning giants of theoretical physics, despite dealing in complexities far greater than most of us do in any working day, still insisted on explaining things as simply as possible …
… then you have no excuses not to use a few extra words to explain something.
* Adapted
** Elon Musk: How The Billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Is Shaping Our Future by Ashlee Vance, p 239.
*** As above, p 240.