People who are impressed by buzzword-heavy “office talk” tend to perform worse on measures of workplace leadership and decision-making, according to a new study published in the journal Science. personality and individual differences.
Many workplaces rely heavily on jargon-filled communications, phrases like “growth hacking” or “one more click to drill down.” ” Such language may sound sophisticated, but researchers are increasingly questioning whether it actually improves communication or obscures meaning.
Researchers who study “bullshit acceptance” define it as the tendency to evaluate vague or misleading statements as deep, insightful, or informative, even if they contain little substance. Previous research has linked receptivity to various types of misleading and pseudo-profound language to weak analytical thinking and poor reasoning.
Shane Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University, set out to investigate this phenomenon, specifically in corporate settings. Littrell explained that the idea for the study came from his own professional experience. “I used to work in a corporate environment, but I hated it so much that I ended up changing jobs.”
He says, “One of the more frustrating aspects was that the ‘higher ups’ were speaking to everyone in a confusing manner.” For example, “One of my bosses liked to use words like ‘synergy,’ ‘derivation,’ and ‘optimal flow-through’ in ways that didn’t have consistent meanings. He also liked to say that we ‘downloaded’ rather than ‘discussed’ or ‘talked about’ a topic.”
“I couldn’t understand why he didn’t talk like a normal person and it was very upsetting,” Littrell said.
“While the well-spoken style of the executives was probably impressive (at least to them), the actual communication was much more difficult for others.” Because so many people encounter these types of messages within organizations, he argued, the topic merits systematic scientific investigation. In his words: “Hundreds of millions of people have to do business with these types of organizations every day, either because they work for them, because they consume their products, or both.”
The study included four studies with a total sample of 1,018 working adults in the United States and Canada recruited through an online survey platform. Participants rated a series of corporate style statements. Some of these statements are genuine quotes from business leaders, while others are generated using algorithms that assemble corporate buzzwords into sentences that sound plausible but are essentially meaningless. Participants rated how “business savvy” each statement was on a 5-point scale ranging from “not at all business savvy” to “very business savvy.”
The responses from the first survey were used to create the Corporate Drive Receptivity Scale (CBSR). This is a new measure designed to understand how strongly people perceive jargon-heavy corporate statements as “business savvy.” In subsequent research, Littrell validated the scale by comparing it to various other scales.
Participants completed tests of analytical thinking and reasoning, such as the Cognitive Reflection Test and the Fluid Intelligence Scale, as well as measures that assess open-minded thinking and receptivity to other forms of misleading language. They also completed measures related to workplace functioning, including assessments of leadership qualities, job satisfaction, trust in superiors, alignment with company mission statements, and situational judgment tasks designed to measure decision-making in workplace scenarios.
Littrell emphasized that the acceptability of misleading words can be highly context-dependent. “One of the most important issues this study highlights is that ‘bullshit acceptability’ is highly context-dependent, so it is inappropriate for researchers to use a ‘one size fits all’ scale, which makes sense given how bullshit acceptability works in the real world,” he said.
“For example, a business professional might think New Age claims about ‘transcendental consciousness’ or ‘vibrational energy’ are really stupid (i.e. they have a low susceptibility to pseudo-profound BS). But when they get to work the next day, they get fooled by all sorts of misleading claims wrapped in buzzwords like ‘blue sky thinking’ and ‘customer differentiated value proposition’ (i.e. they have a high susceptibility to corporate BS).”
“The bottom line is that most people can fall for bullshit if it is packaged to appeal to particular expertise, interests, or biases.”
Throughout his research, Littrell found that people vary greatly in how impressed they are with corporate buzzword statements. People with high corporate bullshit receptivity scores were more likely to view jargon-heavy statements as insightful or indicative of business expertise. They were also more likely to use exaggerated or misleading language to convince others of their own “bullshit” in order to impress others.
At the same time, higher receptivity was associated with lower scores on measures of analytical thinking and fluid intelligence, suggesting that people who are impressed by corporate language are also less likely to critically evaluate information.
The study also revealed important implications for the workplace. People high in corporate bullshit receptivity were more likely to find the company’s mission statement inspiring and to perceive their boss as a charismatic or transformational leader. However, these same individuals performed poorly on situational judgment tasks designed to measure workplace leadership and decision-making abilities. Even when other variables were taken into account, a company’s receptivity to bullshit was the strongest predictor of poor performance on these decision-making tasks.
Littrell explained why this is important to the organization. “Confusing, buzzword-heavy ‘corporate speech’ isn’t just annoying and annoying; it can actually be harmful. Some language in the workplace may sound smart and strategic, at least on the surface, but this is what I call ‘functionally misleading’ (it can mislead an audience, regardless of the speaker’s intentions).”
People vary in how persuasive they find these words to be, and those differences can have real consequences. “People who are more impressionable – people who are more receptive to corporate bullshit – perform worse on measures of workplace leadership and decision-making. That’s why, no matter what the speaker’s intentions are, the audience understands the goals, feedback, and decisions being communicated clearly and correctly. ‘Corporate bullshit’ can be counterproductive, as it can distort the understanding of employees. This can not only undermine employee performance and career advancement, but can also lead to reputational and financial costs for the organization.”
The authors caution that while the Corporate Absurdity Scale is a promising research tool, it is not yet ready for high-stakes applications such as employee screening or hiring decisions. Additional work is also needed to test the scale in different cultures and languages where the concept of “bullshit” may be interpreted differently.
“Next steps will focus on stronger tests of real-world validation, such as collecting data at specific companies and comparing employee receptivity scores to objective company metrics (sales goals, performance reviews from direct supervisors, etc.),” Littrell told PsyPost.
“We also need a deeper understanding of how context influences acceptability, as factors such as the speaker’s authority, status, and speaking style can amplify (or neutralize) the effects of bullshit and haphazardness in work environments.”
Overall, the findings suggest that catchy-sounding corporate jargon not only frustrates employees, but can also impact how people effectively evaluate information and make decisions in the workplace.
As Littrell advised, when you come across impressive-sounding organizational language, pay attention. “Depending on the context, most of us are easily fooled by impressive-sounding words. It’s a kind of cognitive trap. So if you think a message is ‘smart’ or impressive, but you can’t explain the supporting evidence or even translate it into a straightforward, concrete claim, you’re probably being influenced by the packaging of the message rather than the actual content of the message.”
“So, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, when you come across any type of organizational message (e.g., from a company’s business leaders, a public report, a mission statement, an advertisement, etc.), ask yourself: ‘What’s the specific claim here?’ ‘Does it make sense?’ and ‘Does the evidence actually support it?’ Because impressive-sounding buzzwords and jargon are often misunderstood red flags. ”
Littrell also writes about these topics on his Substack. bullshit science.
The study, “Corporate Drill Acceptance Scale: Development, Validation, and Association with Workplace Outcomes,” was authored by Shane Littrell.
