Have you ever sat in a meeting where everyone seems to understand what's being discussed, except you? Acronyms are flying, people are nodding, someone says "let's double-click on that," and you're quietly trying to figure out what exactly we're clicking on.

Or worse, you understand every word being said, but discover later that everyone walked away with a different interpretation.

Every organization develops its own language. Acronyms, shorthand, expressions, and phrases that make perfect sense to insiders and absolutely no sense to everyone else.

And I get it. Shared language makes us efficient. It creates a sense of belonging. It saves us from explaining the same things over and over.

But there's a fascinating catch.

Workplace jargon becomes a communication problem when the language we assume everyone understands is understood differently, or not at all. And the consequences go beyond confusion. They can affect who participates, what information gets shared, and ultimately, how decisions are made.

Why does workplace jargon create misunderstandings?

In a TED Talk, psychology professor Tessa West describes an experiment where pairs of people were asked to describe nearly identical office photographs. Within minutes, they developed their own shorthand. One team called a picture "wall fern," while another called it "tidy vibe."

Perfectly efficient, until someone from another team joined the conversation.

Suddenly, the language that made collaboration easier became the very thing making it harder.

And this happens in our workplaces ALL THE TIME.

In fact, a 2025 study involving 1,826 participants found that workplace jargon doesn't just make information harder to understand. It can also undermine people's confidence in their ability to do their jobs and reduce their willingness to seek or share information.

Think about that. The language we're using to make work faster might actually be discouraging people from asking questions or contributing what they know.

What I find particularly interesting is that we rarely notice it happening. The people speaking aren't necessarily trying to exclude anyone, and the people listening don't necessarily want to interrupt and look clueless.

So everyone nods. The meeting moves on. We mistake familiarity for shared understanding.

And later, we wonder why something was misunderstood, why a decision wasn't executed as expected, or why people weren't speaking up.

Whose responsibility is it to make sure we're understood?

And here's another thing I find interesting. We tend to put the burden of understanding on the person who doesn't know. They should ask, they should clarify, they should speak up. But what about the people who already know? At what point does making ourselves understood become our responsibility too?

To me, that's not just a communication issue. It's a question of how we design the everyday practices that allow people to work together.

I'm not suggesting we ban acronyms or start explaining every word we use. But perhaps we need to become a little more conscious of the invisible languages we create at work.

Especially when someone new joins a team, when different departments collaborate, or when people come from different professional and cultural backgrounds.

Just because everyone speaks the same language doesn't mean everyone shares the same understanding.

And maybe asking "What do we mean by that?" is one of the most useful things someone can bring to a meeting.

Even if it makes us sound like the annoying person in the room.

References