An acronym is a word made up from the initials or sometimes longer pieces of a name or title. Radar, for example, is a word made from RAdio Detecting And Ranging. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. UNICEF is an acronym. On the other hand, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is not shortened into an acronym, but into an initialism—the letters are spelled out as U-N-H-C-R. The YMCA is another initialism. We say Y-M-C-A . Often, however, all of these shortened names are known as acronyms.

BAFFLEGAB

The problem with communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished.
—GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

Now we need to address the second meaning of jargon—language that fails to communicate because it is full of long or fancy words, uses more words than necessary, or overuses a word or phrase until it becomes meaningless. I’m going to call it bafflegab, to distinguish it from usable jargon. This style of writing is also frequently known as bureaucratese, officialese or management- speak. I am sure we have all seen many examples of this kind of writing. Here are some:

• By utilizing effectively designed strategies created by consultant-led focus groups representing a cross-spectrum of our principal stakeholders, we demonstrated consistent leadership.
• Based on the core values of our organization and incorporating best practices, our management team was able to initiate and implement effective organizational imperatives which challenged traditional assumptions and employed innovative ideas.
• We are committed to responsible governance and a culture of leadership. We strive to encourage people-interaction skills and the identification of key competencies so that the work environment may be conducive to the creation of a total business integration solution.

You get the idea. I’m sure we have all seen this kind of writing. I made these examples up so as not to embarrass anyone by quoting directly, but they could be real. I wrote these sentences in a few minutes. They flow easily, don’t they? But what do they mean? Would an organization admit to inconsistent leadership? Would we admit it if we were planning to incorporate second-best practices? Would we actually admit to wanting irresponsible governance? And what exactly do we mean when we say we are committed? Many people (often in positions of power) use this term when it means they have no intention of making changes. It implies a wishy-washy, benign sentiment that needs no further action. Strive is another word in the same class. We can strive, but it need not mean we expect to succeed.