Corporate Jargon: When “We Have a Framework” Actually Means “We Have Vibes”

Corporate language is fascinating. Entire ecosystems exist where simple questions disappear into clouds of buzzwords, alignment sessions, stakeholder mapping, and strategic narratives. Somewhere between “leveraging synergies” and “embedding best practice,” reality quietly slips out the back door.

Because sometimes corporate jargon isn’t communication.

It’s camouflage.

What I call out as utter bullshit!

You know the moment. You ask a straightforward question:

“Do we formally have this process in place?”

Simple enough. Binary, even.

Yes or no.

Instead, what arrives is not an answer. What arrives is a saga.

An email appears. Then another. Soon you’re trapped in what can only be described as competitive email tennis. Replies bounce across inboxes at increasing speed and decreasing usefulness.

Someone references historical context.

Someone else mentions future aspirations.

Another person explains how teams have “typically approached this space.”

One heroic contributor attaches a process map from 2019 that nobody recognises.

By week two, the email thread has become less of a conversation and more of an endurance sport.

And yet, after three essays, seven forwards, four “reply all” incidents, and enough jargon to power a management conference, the original question remains untouched.

Do we formally have this in place?

Still unclear.

This is where corporate language performs its favourite trick: replacing certainty with activity.

Phrases like:

• “We’re working towards maturity in this area.”

• “There are elements of this already embedded.”

• “We operate with flexible governance.”

• “There’s an informal understanding across teams.”

Translation?

No documented process exists.

And that matters because risk doesn’t disappear simply because vocabulary improves.

The funny thing about organisational risk is that it doesn’t care how polished the PowerPoint looks. It doesn’t care whether people are aligned, socialised, cascaded, or workshopped. If something critical exists only in people’s heads, inboxes, or unwritten habits, then the risk remains exactly where it started: inside the business.

This is why one of the most powerful responses in corporate life is also one of the shortest.

Eight words.

“Yes, please, now send me the evidence, then.”

That question changes everything.

Because evidence is awkward.

Evidence demands ownership.

Evidence requires documents, approvals, controls, governance, training records, policies, accountability, and actual proof that a thing exists beyond optimistic storytelling.

And when evidence doesn’t appear, something important happens: the fog clears.

Not because people are incompetent. Not because anyone intentionally misled anyone. But because organisations often confuse familiarity with formality.

“We’ve always done it” quietly becomes “we have a process.”

“We discussed it once” becomes “we have governance.”

“Someone owns that” becomes “ownership is clear.”

Until someone asks for evidence.

The lesson isn’t to ban jargon entirely. Every workplace has its language. The problem starts when language becomes a substitute for structure.

So next time a simple question returns as a five-page email chain full of strategic narratives and operational maturity statements, ask the dangerous follow-up.

Not for another explanation.

For proof.

Because if the evidence isn’t there, the risk probably still is.

And, just be honest with me when I'm auditing - don't have the evidence, then make it an action.

Not a tennis match of utter bull shit!