Having spent a long time in the consulting world and adjacent (national security particularly) spaces, I think the most pernicious thing about "jargon" is not that it serves as a social in-group bonding signal (which is part of the problem), but that it specifically conflates actions and outcomes in a way that bypasses critical thought. The use and misuse of natsec shibboleths like "lethality" is a good example; "we're going to maximize lethality," first implies that whatever we're doing (kicking out minority groups, spending more time on PT, committing war crimes) will "maximize lethality," implies that we have a working definition of whatever "lethality" is, and, critically, implies that "lethality" is necessary for the fulfillment of whatever our actual goals are. "Lethality" is an adjective, not a goal, but the second you start sprinkling your PPT with the military adjectives du jour (lethality, resilience, survivability, full-spectrum anything) then your audience is already nodding along. These are good things! Who doesn't want to be more lethal, more survivable, more full-spectrum? But a billion dollars later, you can see that none of this actually amounted to a strategy beyond "massive transfer of taxpayer dollars to the prime-of-the-day."

The corporate world is, of course, even more prone to this; it's where the military got it from, after all. Slice out every jargonized adjective or verb from a proposal deck and see how little is often left, and how little it really addresses the user concerns.