Many professionals have found themselves in a meeting, struggling to maintain focus as a colleague drones on about "leveraging the company’s adaptive strategy to optimize our value and reinvigorate our operations."
This convoluted language is colloquially referred to as “corporate bulls–t.” Shane Littrell, a cognitive psychologist and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University, investigates how individuals evaluate and communicate knowledge, as well as how misleading information influences beliefs, attitudes, and decision-making processes.
A self-identified critic of corporate jargon, Littrell characterizes bulls–t as “dubious information that is misleadingly impressive, important, informative, or otherwise engaging.” While it is common to confuse this type of jargon with essential professional terminology, its primary distinction is that it aims to sound intelligent or impressive but ultimately lacks accuracy, relevance, or utility.
Through a series of four studies involving 1,018 participants, Littrell developed the Corporate Bulls–t Receptivity Scale. This instrument assesses how drawn individuals are to such language and how discerning they are regarding various statements perceived as business-savvy. The findings indicate that those who find corporate jargon noteworthy and enlightening tend to perform poorly in leadership and decision-making roles. However, this does not imply that these individuals are ineffective at their jobs; rather, it suggests that they may not excel in leadership positions or strategic decision-making.
Littrell emphasizes that this phenomenon is not directly related to intelligence or educational background. The study's outcomes were consistent across groups, regardless of the fact that over 70% of participants held a bachelor’s degree or higher, indicating that educational attainment does not necessarily correlate with the ability to discern effective communication.
"Part of that has to do with just the environment that you’re in. You have to use that language a little bit just to navigate the workspace," he remarked. "Anyone can be susceptible to bulls–t when it is presented in a manner that appeals to their biases."
The dangers of meaningless corporate-speak
Littrell identifies the workplace as a “fertile ground” for the proliferation of corporate jargon, particularly in competitive environments where individuals seek to impress their superiors.
"Such organizational contexts are rife with authority cues, like job titles, and structures of power hierarchy, where discussions often revolve around leadership visions," he elaborated. "This creates a backdrop that makes it easy to misinterpret such language as genuine insight. Many individuals striving to ascend the corporate ladder often use this type of language to impress those around them."
Beyond being a source of irritation, Littrell warns that corporate jargon can significantly damage credibility and morale. When utilized by leaders, it can obscure employees' understanding of goals, feedback, or decision-making processes.
Moreover, he notes that corporate jargon can result in reputational harm and financial repercussions for organizations. He cites an example from 2008, when PepsiCo faced backlash for an internal report that detailed a $1 million logo redesign.
"The Pepsi DNA finds its origin in the dynamic of perimeter oscillations. This new identity manifests itself in an authentic geometry that is to become proprietary to the Pepsi culture," stated the design consultant, Peter Arnell Group, in the leaked report. "[The Pepsi Proposition is the] establishment of a gravitational pull to shift from a ‘transactional’ experience to an ‘invitational’ expression."
This type of communication not only generates confusion but also leads to prolonged embarrassment for the company, with even the design firm's founder admitting that it was essentially "all bulls–t."
Establishing new norms can stop BS
Littrell asserts that the situation can be remedied. One effective strategy for organizations is to encourage "anti-bulls–t" behavior by prioritizing clear communication from management. This can help dismantle the cycle of convoluted language wherein leaders set the tone that employees feel pressured to emulate.
He recommends fostering an environment wherein non-leaders are encouraged to ask questions, which can deter the inclination to feign omniscience. "Individuals often experience social pressure to avoid appearing uninformed, leading them to remain silent rather than seek clarification, fearing it may make them seem less knowledgeable," he explained.
Finally, he advocates for organizations to acknowledge and reward clear communication and inquisitiveness in performance reviews, as these elements are crucial for setting clear expectations and fostering a culture of effective dialogue.
Share this story