Corporate Jargon Linked to Poor Job Performance, Research Finds
A groundbreaking study from Cornell University, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, reveals that workers who are impressed by corporate jargon, often termed 'corporate bullshit,' may be less effective in their roles. The research indicates that such employees tend to make poorer business decisions, potentially leaving companies with dysfunctional leaders.
Defining Corporate Bullshit in Academic Terms
Academically, 'bullshit' is broadly defined as information that is misleadingly impressive or engaging but lacks semantic or logical substance. 'Corporate bullshit' specifically refers to the use of puzzling buzzwords and jargon that are semantically empty and often confusing. This type of communication is frequently employed by management to persuade and impress, sometimes inflating perceptions of the company among workers and investors.
Shane Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher and cognitive psychologist at Cornell University who authored the study, explained, 'There’s a lot of useful things about the way people in a certain company speak to each other. But it becomes problematic when that turns into nonsense that’s used for misleading purposes. It’s the people that can’t tell the difference that seem to have the most problems.'
Testing the Impact with a Corporate Bullshit Generator
To assess the effects of corporate bullshit on workers, Littrell developed a 'corporate bullshit generator' that produces statements like 'we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing' and 'creating a hyper-connected, frictionless, and impact-minded global enterprise.' He mixed these generated quotes with real ones from Fortune 500 company leaders and asked 1,000 office workers to rate each statement's 'business savvy.'
In one study, participants were presented with workplace scenarios and asked to make decisions. Those who fell for corporate bullshit displayed lower scores in analytical thinking, reflection, and fluid intelligence. Littrell used these results to create the 'Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale,' a tool for researchers and practitioners to examine the causes and consequences of bullshit receptivity in organizations.
Real-World Examples and Consequences
Littrell cited examples such as Pepsi's 2009 rebrand attempt, which was ridiculed after a leaked document opened with 'by investing in our history and brand ethos we can create a new trajectory forwards'—a $1.5 million effort to slightly modify the logo. He also pointed to Elizabeth Holmes, who used corporate bullshit to woo and defraud investors.
'The people that are the most susceptible to the corporate bullshit tended to choose the worst solutions to those problems on a consistent basis,' Littrell noted. However, being wowed by bullshit isn't entirely negative. In another study, susceptible employees rated their supervisors as more charismatic and visionary, felt more inspired by their company's mission, and reported higher job satisfaction.
Findings Apply Across Educational Backgrounds
The study participants came from highly educated backgrounds in fields like HR, accounting, marketing, and finance, with bachelor's degrees and even PhDs. This demonstrates that the findings extend beyond simple intelligence assessments. 'This isn’t something that only affects people who are less intelligent,' Littrell concluded. 'Anybody can fall for bullshit, and we all, depending on the situation, fall for bullshit when it is kind of packaged up to appeal to our biases.'
