We should not ridicule people asking for clarification. Make them feel like they can ask in almost any situation.
In writing, especially emails, I've setup text replacement rules in Outlook that would replace sp with SharePoint as I type. So I have the benefit of typing in shorthand, and the clarity of the full term at the same time.
There's no one-size-fits-all way to fix it, but I think this also helps to make it easier and more accessible for all 😃
Your first bullet rang a bell for me. While I agree that we should feel safe to ask, I believe we should take it a step farther. The Communicator has information that they want to convey to the Recipient. It's the Recipient's responsibility to listen and ask questions, sure... but it's the Communicator's responsibility to ensure the information has been delivered effectively! So the Communicator should always strive to deliver more than the "bare minimum message".
Also love the idea that the tools can assist us in being faster while preserving clarity. Wonder if those replacement rules could be sort of "inner-sourced" within a company that struggles with alphabet soup?
Absolutely. It's a two-way street, because I've also encountered similar acronyms and abbreviations that have different meanings based on the context e.g.
CI
Corporate Identity
Continuous Integration
Customer Insights
It's not impossible that all three above could feature in the same meeting and then it is up to the communicator to ensure that contextually these are explained well enough.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
My observations on this over the years:
There's no one-size-fits-all way to fix it, but I think this also helps to make it easier and more accessible for all 😃
Your first bullet rang a bell for me. While I agree that we should feel safe to ask, I believe we should take it a step farther. The Communicator has information that they want to convey to the Recipient. It's the Recipient's responsibility to listen and ask questions, sure... but it's the Communicator's responsibility to ensure the information has been delivered effectively! So the Communicator should always strive to deliver more than the "bare minimum message".
Also love the idea that the tools can assist us in being faster while preserving clarity. Wonder if those replacement rules could be sort of "inner-sourced" within a company that struggles with alphabet soup?
Absolutely. It's a two-way street, because I've also encountered similar acronyms and abbreviations that have different meanings based on the context e.g.
CI
It's not impossible that all three above could feature in the same meeting and then it is up to the communicator to ensure that contextually these are explained well enough.