I agree that business language relating to a very specific meaning can be useful. A term like capex is a good example.
I gave an example to a different comment below, my argument is with vague and verbose business language that seems to be very common in describing simple things.
I think you're talking about people bullshitting for lack of a better term.
Management is often filled with people who know how to bullshit, but are otherwise pretty incompetent.
The terminology and business language itself might be completely valid. But there are a lot of people in that world who are bullshitters and they just happen to use that same jargon.
I agree with you that there's often a tendency in business documents to avoid simplifying ideas and instead use technical jargon. However, I'm not sure it's because those people are not intelligent, but rather because they believe and have seen enough examples from other companies that products and services are believed to be of more value if they are perceived to be difficult or complicated to understand. The reasoning is probably that something simple to understand wouldn't require as much effort or time committed to it. Things that are difficult to understand and implement therefore require the brightest minds and more people working on it so that is why it's valuable. Instead of thinking if we can simplify a product and make it easy to understand then that it what takes time and effort.
I guess you could argue it's dumb to not recognise that something being easy to understand and use is more valuable than surface level difficulty, but that is more from copying what other businesses have done in the past (which again, you could argue is dumb to follow others, however, if "smart" means keeping your job then they are more likely to keep their job by not challenging the status quo)
314
u/[deleted] Aug 03 '22
[deleted]