More on the language theme…
Guy Kawasaki is also interested in language, as he reprinted on his blog George Orwell’s entire essay (from 1946) about the decay of the English language. Orwell’s focus is on politics, but I think the basic points are dead on in terms of business language these days. Orwell quotes a few writers from that day (which I won’t repeat here) and then has this to say:
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery: the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.
Okay, before I throw this stone I admit fully that I have been guilty of poor writing in my life. I have not always chosen concrete over abstract.
But I think he is right in his assessment of lazy word choice. Once you get used to business jargon, it becomes easy to simply plug those phrases in. They sound “good” and their meaning is in the ballpark of what you were thinking. But it lacks precision. You don’t ALWAYS need such precision, but sometimes you do, and it will take some time to get the words right.
On the other hand, using super-precise words sometimes leads to consultant-speak, which is dangerous too. Over time, I’ve found myself using words that are far more precise, but sometimes I feel I actually convey less meaning than when I use less precise words. The other day I said something to my wife that made her want to reach for a dictionary. Maybe it’s because people don’t think using those more precise words that they just don’t resonate??? Instead of saying, “It’s imperative that we determine the association’s core offerings at the outset,” I could more easily say, “First we gotta figure out what our best stuff is.” Speaking of stuff, I’ve found that using the word “stuff” is actually a great way to bring the language back down to the vernacular. I’ll use it generously if I’m getting weird looks from people I’m talking with, indicating that I’m talking over their heads.
Yes, precision and big words don’t always go hand in hand. In your example, I don’t know that imperative is any more precise than must. But either way, whether something has “meaning” or not does depend on the audience. For some audiences, I suppose, imperative would be a better fit? And I see the value of a word like “stuff.” You just have to be sure you’re not using it out of laziness. It can be intentionally imprecise in situations where THAT precision is not what you need to be focusing on, or trying to communicate precisely about that piece would actually be distracting. But be careful about dipping into that well too often.