Acronyms are accepted as a necessary evil in the emergency management sector. They’re joked about and apologised for, but still widely adopted for their ease of use in fast-paced and dynamic environments.

I mean, who wants to say or write “Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System” repeatedly, when it’s just so much easier to use “AIIMS” instead? 

I get it. Acronyms are quick and easy, speeding up the communication of intent, requests and situations when time is often of the essence. But are they quick and easy for everyone? Are acronyms always used correctly? And do they always save time?

Let’s have a proper look at them and where they can present problems for crisis communications in surprising ways.

How acronyms can get in the way of clear communication, especially during crises

Inter-agency operations are inherently complex, time-pressured and often high stakes in nature. 

Although every team member from each agency is motivated to do their best and serve the common good, constantly changing situations, resource challenges, public attention, and risk management can test even the most experienced operators.

And then if we add the need to work with strangers, different organisational cultures and chains of command, all while combating known unknowns, fatigue and stress management? 

Inter-agency incident management team. Photo credit: Country Fire Service

Well. That’s the perfect recipe for effective and clear communication to break down.

We’ve all seen it. An Incident Controller cracks under the pressure for a moment and barks a command at their radio operator, scribe or support officer. And in that command is an unfamiliar acronym. 

But that acronym represents a vital request from the Incident Controller. They need a piece of equipment, a resource or to speak to another officer. 

And their request is met with a blank look, and an uneasy feeling from their team member.

That team member has three choices at that moment:

• Ask someone else
• Wait for their Incident Controller to have a moment spare so they can ask them, or 
• Take a guess and act anyway.

The possible impacts? Lost time, the wrong resource or officer being requested, extra stress, and a breakdown of trust.

And in the worst case scenario, that small communication breakdown could lead to lives or property being placed at a higher risk.

All because of a sneaky acronym getting in the way.

The invisible impact of acronyms on new employees or volunteers 

Acronyms can also be incredibly alienating to new team members, those wanting to upskill, or for volunteers.

Although an all-hands-on-deck approach is often needed in times of crisis, incident management teams can quickly fall into groups of those in the know, and those that aren’t. 

And an overuse of acronyms is often the cause. 

Of course, no one means to make new team members feel alienated or out of the loop, but it’s easy to do in an already confronting environment. Acronyms can appear as if to be a completely new language, being traded with ease between experienced team members. But that language can only serve to highlight the “I’m out of my depth” feeling that new team members might be experiencing.

And if your team is made up of volunteers, who have put up their hand to help, without really being sure if they can do what’s being asked? Acronyms can be like kryptonite to their motivation for helping again.

I’ve been there. We all have. Even seasoned responders working with a new community association, the media, legislation, or an international body. We’ve all felt that immediate sense of disconnect when a new acronym is dropped and we have zero idea what it means.

It’s not a nice feeling. At all.

Increasing barriers between agencies and communities

Although emergency management agencies work hard to partner with communities around prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (even this has an acronym… PPRR!), acronyms can quickly erode trust. 

As agencies are shifting focus to letting communities lead their own response to crises, common language is a must for mutual respect, relationship building and effective action.

It’s still a reality that communities can be wary towards “the brass” in a crisis, but minimising the use of acronyms in written and verbal communications is a simple way of avoiding new barriers.

Community members simply want to know who is in charge, where they can go, what they can do, and who can help them. Accidentally throwing around acronyms to an audience who is already overwhelmed and distressed is very likely to quickly counter your efforts towards connection and clear communication.  

Discouraging diversity, inclusivity and accessibility

One other frequently overlooked problem with the overuse of acronyms is their inaccessibility. 

Not only do new team members feel excluded, but what about those where English isn’t their first language, or they have a hearing or speech difficulty?

Although an acronym might be fairly quick to work out for someone who has had a little bit to do with emergency management (that “O” probably means Officer or Operations), if English isn’t their first language, it’s less clear.

Acronyms often don’t translate well between languages where nouns and adjectives are reversed, and a multi-lingual team member suddenly has to work even harder, under time pressure, to decipher acronyms quickly and accurately.

And for team members with hearing or speech difficulties? A “D” could easily become a “B”, or an “F” an “S”, and so on. Not only are you adding extra pressure on that team member, but timely and correct responses could be compromised.

The hidden costs of acronyms in crisis communication

In summary, while acronyms can certainly be convenient and time-saving, their overuse can lead to significant communication breakdowns, especially in high-pressure crisis situations. They can alienate new team members, inter-agency colleagues, and those with language barriers or accessibility needs, and can ultimately compromise the effectiveness of emergency response efforts.

In my next blog, we’ll explore strategies to combat the overuse of acronyms and enhance clear communication during crises.