It's as if the less we know, the more we try and dress things up in complicated

“We need a scalable framework to operationalise cross-functional ideation.”

Do you mean a shared list?

“No. It’s a scalable framework.”

Ah.

Complicated language often covers one of three things: a precise technical distinction, a muddled idea or fear of sounding ordinary. Only the first deserves protection. The other two are expensive ways of avoiding a basic question.

What happens next?

If the answer requires four abstract nouns before reaching a verb, confidence should drop. Jargon can help specialists exchange exact meaning quickly; outside that group, it may merely signal membership and stop challenge. The person who cannot understand the phrase is made to feel junior, while the person using it escapes having to explain.

This is commercially costly. Customers cannot buy a benefit they cannot identify. Staff cannot repeat a strategy whose language belongs to an internal dialect. Leaders receive agreement from people who are actually confused and discover the gap after money has been spent.

Humour helps because pomposity depends on everybody maintaining a straight face. Ask for the child’s version. Read the sentence aloud. Replace each inflated noun with the action, actor and result. If the idea becomes embarrassingly small, useful information has appeared.

Uncertainty can also be stated plainly: “We do not yet know whether this will reduce cancellations; this test should tell us.” That sentence contains less authority and more truth.

The shared list remains on screen. Nobody has explained why it needs a framework.

Behavioural principles

Behavioural ideas at play in this post

Short, plain-English explanations of the principles behind this post, with links to related books and examples in the archive.