THE NEW
WAY
TO WORK
Why Is Corporate Lingo A Problem?
Let’s bite the bullet and discuss the impact of corporate lingo. Corporate lingo, or “corporate speak,” initially intended to streamline communication and demonstrate expertise, has inadvertently morphed into a significant problem within the workplace and beyond. Direct communication saves hours and sometimes days by making decisions clearer and faster. Phrases like “synergy,” “thinking outside the box,” and “leveraging our assets,” while sounding professional, often lead to transparency issues as their meaning can be ambiguous or even used as euphemisms to deliberately obscure information. This lack of clarity can cause confusion, hindering productivity and leading to costly mistakes. Due to buzzwords confusing the communication between teams, people pretend to understand what is asked and then deliver the wrong thing. Lost time equals lost money, and when you multiply that by team size and salary, it adds up. Misunderstanding leads to rework, and every hour spent fixing vague direction is an hour wasted. Beyond the monetary cost of miscommunication (which can reach half a millions annually for smaller companies), corporate jargon acts as a social barrier, excluding those unfamiliar with the terminology and potentially alienating employees. It can create a sense of being “out of the loop” and foster a culture of distrust and disengagement, hindering inclusivity and employee well-being. Ultimately, relying on buzzwords instead of clear and direct communication can undermine trust, lower morale, and damage company performance. Corporate lingo presents itself not only as a transparency problem but as a monetary and social one
How Much is Corporate Lingo Costing You?
Excessive jargon in the workplace can lead to a multitude of negative impacts, costing businesses significantly. According to a survey by the International Journal of Business Communication, 75% of employees say jargon affects their understanding of communications and reduces overall clarity in their workplaces. Jargon fosters confusion and miscommunication, leading employees to seek clarification, thereby slowing down tasks and hindering productivity. Studies estimate that teams lose a notable amount of time weekly due to poor communication, with one report indicating an average of 7.47 hours lost per week per employee, translating to approximately $12,500 in lost productivity per employee annually. Even for small businesses, the financial impact can be substantial; companies with around 100 employees may lose approximately $546,000 annually due to miscommunication stemming from jargon. Jargon contributes to increased employee turnover, leading to substantial costs associated with recruitment, training, and onboarding new staff. Unclear communication during onboarding and training makes it difficult for new hires to become productive quickly, increasing training and onboarding costs. Replacing an employee can cost a significant percentage of their annual salary. Lingo can also negatively impact customer service and lead to reduced customer satisfaction and loyalty, potentially leading to lost business. A study with People Matters Global reported that the overuse of jargon has reportedly led to a 15–20% decrease in team meeting participation, particularly among younger and more diverse employee groups. This reduction is associated with perceived inauthenticity and confusion surrounding workplace communication. Misaligned objectives and miscommunications can cause projects to go off track which result in both delays and significant potential monetary losses.
Corporate Lingo and Implicit Bias
In Why Corporate Jargon Is Bad for Business by NeuroLeadership Institute, they restate the idea that companies should strive for a jargon-free zone. Not only does jargon exclude people but “if leaders are trying to create an inclusive workplace, the last thing they should do is encourage a bizarre language of office-speak that not everybody understands…Corporate jargon risks alienating non-native speakers, who often find English idioms confusing. To avoid creating harmful in-groups and out-groups, leaders should model and encourage the use of plain, direct speech.” Even though corporate lingo is not always intentionally discriminatory, it exists in systems already shaped by inequity and therefore protects the status quo. Transparency isn’t just efficient but it is also inclusive. Figuring out how the root mechanisms behind corporate jargon causes indirect bias and who it affects can help companies and their teams understand, contribute efficiently, and progress.
Real Life Case Study: Textio and Johnson & Johnson
Researching and analyzing case studies are the best ways to make this issue real and measurable. A real case study, Textio’s work with Johnson & Johnson, backs up these findings. Textio, an augmented writing platform, uses AI to analyze language in job descriptions and provide recommendations to reduce bias and improve their hiring process in which they helped Johnson & Johnson succeed. In this case study, Johnson & Johnson removed jargon from job postings and increased women applicants by 9% and underrepresented minority applicants by 23%. Utilizing augmented writing tools can help organizations and companies address the unconscious bias that even exists in these said job descriptions and help diversify the applicant pools. Collaboration and understanding are crucial for optimizing job descriptions that get rid of corporate lingo that perpetuate implicit biases.
The “Performative Professionalism” of Jargon
A lot of people use corporate jargon to appear more knowledgeable or authoritative even when they may not be. It can be a way for individuals to signal status and pr›oject an image of competence without necessarily demonstrating genuine skill or understanding. While directness is generally valued at the CEO level and in leadership communication with important caveats, any other levels of an organization deal with potential drawbacks of being perceived as incompetent and aggressive. Without proper delivery to people in positions of power oftentimes misinterpret directness as unprofessional and harsh if not delivered with socially expected tact. However, a lot of the time, corporate lingo can shift the focus from actual results and skills to a display of professionalism that can come across as superficial and insincere. When a connection feels like a facade, employees can feel they lack control over their outcome and ultimately their intrinsic motivation decreases while disengagement increases. People don’t want the pressure to be overly positive or performative and instead want to prioritize reliability, respect, and quality work which is highlighted in functional professionalism.
Corporate Lingo Results In Confusion and Exclusion
Using corporate lingo costs you time, trust, talent, and real money. By breaking down the misconceptions that direct language is harsh, the true conversation that it is honest, efficient, and human can help to realize that it is in reality personable. If you’re building a future-facing company like Chambiar, clarity isn’t just understanding and kind, but it’s a competitive advantage. Lingo is a costume and directness is a weapon. Although corporate jargon can streamline communication within specialized fields and signal expertise, its overuse can hinder understanding and create barriers. When it is clear to know when to use both, smart leaders grow and establish themselves. The truth is that corporate lingo is learned and not innate; it positions people who have connections in the corporate world and have worked in white-collar, ivy-adjacent, English-dominant, tech-forward spaces in an advantage. When plain speech is penalized and lingo is rewarded employees focus on code-switching and self-censoring. The knowledge of certain phrases should not equate to intelligence and is instead “cultural fluency” masquerading as competence. A truly successful company that is fair to everyone as a part of its team doesn’t pressure people to perform assimilation instead they value their employees that are from working-class, immigrant, or marginalized backgrounds. CEOs and founders should prioritize directness because when they pair being direct with empathy, they create a space where team members feel respected. Instead of vague feedback, they provide constructive criticism that helps with growth which later supports their company for the better.