The first one is simply confusion: jargon allows our work only to be understood by the subset of people who speak your language.
In the case of economics, where the jargon is calculus, that might be OK.
But in most cases, jargon excludes people unnecessarily: if they don’t readily understand your language, they won’t understand your message.
The second problem is one of distance and separation. Jargon is a way to hide from reality, because technical language feels neutral, even when it’s not.
For example, in the world of social impact, it’s common to talk about measuring “outputs” and measuring “outcomes.” Both of those “O” words sound pretty good—sophisticated even—and neither carries much emotional content.
That’s why someone can say “we don’t measure social outcomes” and it can feel objective, rational even.
Whereas if someone were to say, “We count how many people are being reached, but other than that, we don’t have any data at all,” that might engender a whole slew of additional questions.
Don’t you want to know who is being reached?
Wouldn’t it be helpful to understand what their experience is?
Isn’t it essential to hear from them directly if the product is helping them — how much and why?
The good news is, hearing directly from people about what’s happening for them is increasingly common.
For example, the third annual 60 Decibels Microfinance Index was launched last week: real, comparable data from more than 36,000 customers representing tens of millions of microfinance clients.
Data about who they are.
Data about what their experience is.
Data about what’s working for them, and what can be improved.
It’s amazing how easy all of that is to understand when we state it simply and directly.
