Why plain speaking is the lawyer’s hidden superpower
As digital automation encroaches on our profession, human-to-human relationships become even more important. New research shows that something as simple as the language we use can build or erode the quality of our relationships with clients.
‘We have under-invested in the driver experience and as a result we are in a reputational deficit.’ No prizes for guessing which disruptive ride-hailing firm this quote comes from. But would you feel confident that they are committed to doing anything about it? On the other hand, you’d probably be more likely to trust a company that puts it something like this. ‘We’ve not looked after our drivers. And now we’re not looking good.’
Or would you want to invest in a company whose chairman tells its shareholders that the firm has metamorphosed into a new ecosystem? If something about the jargon makes you queasy, you are not alone; and the evidence suggests that’s a very human reaction. Yet we humans fall for the jargon trap repeatedly and people in professional services are particularly susceptible.
At the same time, commentators identify the legal profession as one that will be most disrupted by digital automation. Referring to the coming storm, a keynote speaker at the recent Private Equity symposium in London opened with the line, “Apologies to all of the lawyers in the room, you’re going to feel a lot of pressure.”
Human relationships become the differentiator
However, the risks also bring opportunities. Numerous studies show that clients aren’t willing simply to hand over their legal work to machines. They still require humans whom they trust to be part of the mix. That’s where the opportunity for differentiation lies. And the evidence shows that when it comes to creating a sense of trust, small things such as the language we use can make a significant difference.
Clients want communication
Human relationships become the differentiator. And what do clients want from their lawyers? In a word: Communication. The Cunningham report: Reviewed evidence from England, Australia and the United States, concluded: Clients place greater weight on the quality of communication with their lawyers and are often disappointed by failure to listen carefully and explain clearly.
If we want to build warm and human relationships, warm and human language works best. It costs nothing and the evidence suggests that it delivers a significant payback.
When you use plain language, people get involved and want to talk more. That was the finding of a study by Hilary Shulman and colleagues from Ohio State University, The Effects of Jargon on Processing Fluency, Self-Perceptions, and Scientific Engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(5–6), 579–597.
Plain language creates greater engagement
Participants read versions of the same material – about either complex scientific or political issues – written either in plain language or using specialist jargon. Where there was more jargon, participants were significantly less likely to engage in discussion or ask questions.
Perhaps that’s not surprising, if we don’t understand the jargon, we’re less inclined to talk about it. But if the issue were simply a lack of understanding, explaining technical terms should largely solve the problem. Nonetheless, researchers found that even when the terminology was clearly explained, participants stubbornly remained less engaged.
People exposed to jargon reported feeling less informed, less knowledgeable and less willing to contribute. Participants also reported lower interest in the topic and less desire to learn more about it. Researchers concluded that jargon acts as a social signal, telling outsiders that “this conversation is not for you.”
Plain language produced the opposite effect, willingness to engage, discuss and ask questions.
Why people use jargon
So, if that makes intuitive sense, why do people so readily use jargon? In a study with the snappy title, “Compensatory Conspicuous Communication: Low Status Increases Jargon Use,” researchers from the USC Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California and Columbia Business School explored the link between how people’s perception of their status affects their use of jargon.
The research team looked at the titles of nearly 65,000 dissertations and MA theses and then cross referenced each paper to US News and World Report’s annual college ranking. From this they classified the papers’ authors in terms of the status of the universities that they attended. They then used common readability indices to measure the use of jargon in each title. The researchers discovered that authors from universities that were lower down the rankings tended to use more jargon and complex language than their peers at institutions that are regarded as more prestigious.
In a further experiment the researchers told a group of participants that they were either from lower or higher-ranking universities than others. The participants use of jargon was then compared in a range of situations including business pitches, online conversations about research and the compiling of professional profiles.
The research discovered that those in the low status groups consistently used more jargon than the others. In a third experiment the participants were asked why they used the language that they had used. Interestingly, their responses showed that they were more aware of how their audiences judge them. Those in the higher status categories on the other hand, were more focused on simply getting the message across and expressing their ideas. The researchers went on to note that jargon can be used not only to communicate but also “to signal information about one’s standing within a group”.
In other words, when we’re feeling confident, we tend to use plain language. When we’re feeling less sure of ourselves, it’s tempting to slip into language that’s intended to make us sound smart. Quite simply, lower status was associated with greater use of jargon.
Can jargon make us sound smarter?
So, does more complex language make us seem more intelligent or do people tend to see through it? That’s what the Psychologist Daniel Oppenheimer sought to find out. Across five experiments, participants read passages that conveyed identical underlying ideas but varied in the complexity of language they used. Some passages used straightforward language; others replaced simple words with longer, less familiar alternatives. If complex language signals intelligence, readers should rate authors using sophisticated vocabulary as more intelligent. Researchers found the opposite pattern: writers using unnecessarily complex language were generally rated as less intelligent. The effect appeared consistently across essays, translated passages and admissions-style writing samples. Participants preferred essays written in clear, straightforward language over identical essays rewritten with longer words. The study concluded that readers associate clarity with intelligence and penalise needless complexity.
By the way, Oppenheimer called his study: Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly
The illusion of greater precision
Once you start to notice unnecessary complex language, you cannot un-hear it. Certain phrases start to jar. Here are my top five: utilise instead of use; facilitate instead of help; prior to, instead of before; commencing instead of starting; and approximately instead of about. Linguists have also commented recently on the increased use of multiple when people really mean several. Or potential, when people really mean possible. All the above give the impression of precision but add no greater clarity.
Simplicity is part of the craft
As a lawyer you are a communicator; and as a communicator simplicity is part of the craft. As a colleague of ours who has a background in copywriting and journalism puts it, to talk about simple things in simple language is easy. To talk about complex things in complex language is not too difficult. But to talk about complex things in simple language takes skill. The final point is where you earn your money as a communicator.
Some of the most powerful phrases endure because they manage to capture a complex idea with arresting simplicity:
“The medium is the message.” — Marshall McLuhan
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” — George Box
“Power corrupts.” — Lord Acton
“I think, therefore I am.” – Descartes
“In the long run we’re all dead.” – Keynes
We are currently working with an advisory firm which specialises in complex modelling. They have agreed on the aim of being the plain-speaking-est company in the sector. It may not be the most grammatical, it may not even be a word, but that’s why it sticks in the mind. Plain speaking is more memorable. It signals authenticity which builds trust.
In the words of Orwell: “Never use a long word where a short one will do” and “never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.”
However, I slightly prefer the paraphrase of the American author and political commentator William Safire: “It behooves us to avoid archaisms. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.”
At Threshold, we are helping our clients to ensure that their human workforce is committed, engaged and ready for the technology revolution. We do this by bringing about small shifts in line manager behaviour that make a big difference. To find out more visit www.threshold.co.uk
