By KIM BELLARD
We are living, you’d have to say, in the age of bullshit. Our politicians can’t answer the simplest of questions without spouting word salad answers aimed at running out the clock until the next question. Our corporations spew endless platitudes about their lofty goals in an attempt to distract us from their mendacious profit-seeking. And now we have AI producing endless volumes of words, an unpredictable amount of which aren’t remotely true.
For better or worse (and, trust me, it has often been for worse), I’ve always been one to ask “why,” to probe vagueness — whether it was a teacher, a boss, or a politician. Call me cynical, call me skeptical, call me inquisitive, but I have a low tolerance for bullshit, in its many forms. So I was thrilled to see that a new study suggests that employees who don’t fall for corporate bullshit may be better employees.
The study is from Shane Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher and cognitive psychologist at Cornell University, whose research “focuses primarily on how people evaluate and share knowledge, particularly the ways that misleading information (e.g., bullshit, conspiracy theories, corporate messaging) influence people’s beliefs, attitudes, and decisions.”
One wonders what he was like as a child.
His new research introduces a new tool called the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), which was “designed to measure susceptibility to impressive-but-empty organizational rhetoric.”
His paper defines “bullshit” as “a type of semantically, logically, or epistemically dubious information that is misleadingly impressive, important, informative, or otherwise engaging,” and distinguishes it from other types of speech (such as jargon) in that “it is both functionally misleading and epistemically irresponsible.”
“Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Dr. Littrell. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.”
For the current research, he developed a “corporate bullshit generator” that mixes and marches phrases from actual Fortune 500 business leaders to produce “statements that were syntactically coherent but semantically empty (e.g., “Working at the intersection of cross-collateralization and blue-sky thinking, we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing and end-state vision”).” They sound like statements a real person might say and that should have meaning, but are neither.
He then had study participants evaluate those pseudo-statements versus actual statements, rating the “business savvy” they reflected. As the Cornell press release summarized:
The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making.
The study found that being more receptive to corporate bullshit was also positively linked to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements. Moreover, those who were more likely to fall for corporate BS were also more likely to spread it.
E.g., the more gullible sheep probably aren’t the best workers.
“This creates a concerning cycle,” Dr. Littrell said. “Employees who are more likely to fall for corporate bullshit may help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a sort of negative feedback loop. Rather than a ‘rising tide lifting all boats,’ a higher level of corporate BS in an organization acts more like a clogged toilet of inefficiency.”
Dr. Littrell was quick to point out that falling for corporate bullshit is not a function of intelligence, education, or job functions, telling Michael Sainato of The Guardian: “This isn’t something that only affects people who are less intelligent. 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.”
Similarly, he told Jessica Stillman, writing in Inc.: ““Unfortunately, bullshit and bullshitting are unavoidable. It’s just part of human behavior, especially in competitive environments…If senior executives communicate in ‘bullshitty’ ways, then everyone else will too. They should normalize clearly defining their terms, focus on shorter, to-the-point sentences, and resist using ambiguous buzzwords.”
“Most of us, in the right situation, can get taken in by language that sounds sophisticated but isn’t,” Dr. Littrell said. “That’s why, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth slowing down when you run into organizational messaging of any kind – leaders’ statements, public reports, ads – and ask yourself, ‘What, exactly, is the claim? Does it actually make sense?’ Because when a message leans heavily on buzzwords and jargon, it’s often a red flag that you’re being steered by rhetoric instead of reality.”
Ask. That. Question.
One of my favorite takes on the research was from Rupert Goodwins in The Register, who starts by saying:
Science is at its best when it makes manifest radical ideas that change our worldview. This is the flag all sane people salute, under which we march to war. Yet in our hearts, we know that the very tastiest science is that which confirms our prejudices and validates what we’ve known all along. Cornell University has just served up a plate of the finest yet. Tuck in.
He points out the long history of corporate bullshit, especially in tech and consulting, and now made much worse with AI as “prime slime.” Accordingly:
This is where we call upon the team at Cornell to expand and extend their science beyond the general skewering of business jargon and those who create and consume it, welcome and valuable as it is. The use of the stuff as a diagnostic is great – now use that as the basis for identifying and dissecting the stuff itself, and the mechanisms by which it affects choices and actions.
The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale is a great start. Now we need the ABRC, the AI Bullshit Receptivity Scale.
Unfortunately, Dr. Littrell admitted to Ms. Stillman: “The scale is a promising tool for researchers, but it’s not quite ready yet to be used as a high-stakes screening instrument by private companies. We still need to investigate it more robustly first.”
In the meantime, if you’ve got troublesome employees who are always asking uncomfortable questions and seeking more clarity on goals, instead of sidelining or even firing them, you may want to consider promoting them. They may be your best employees.
Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor
