Study ties corporate buzzword receptivity to poorer decisions

NEW YORK, UNITED STATES — A study from Cornell University has established a correlation between employees who are receptive to corporate jargon—often termed “corporate BS”—and diminished analytical thinking and decision-making capabilities, HR Digest reports.

The research, led by Shane Littrell and published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, suggests that while technical jargon has its place, the pervasive use of semantically empty buzzwords in the workplace may be undermining cognitive function and authentic communication.

Litrell notes that “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.”

The cognitive cost of embracing empty corporate rhetoric

The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR) was created to assess the degree to which people are susceptible to nonsensical business speech. 

According to the results, employees with positive attitudes towards this abstruse jargon are rated lower on tests of analytic thought, cognitive reflection, and fluid intelligence. 

The same individuals also performed worse on tests of good decision-making at work, suggesting that the use of flowery, vague language could be an indicator of underlying cognitive impairments. 

The paper defines the concept of corporate BS specifically as a style of communication that uses bewildering buzzwords in a misleading, functionally ambiguous way rather than communicating clearly.

Further examination revealed a paradoxical social aspect in organizations. Corporate-speak people were found to have a higher level of supervisor ratings as charismatic or visionary. 

Nevertheless, this favorable attitude toward the leadership was accompanied by a certain reduction in employees’ personal thinking and abilities. 

Although these workers were found to be more satisfied with their jobs and more committed to the mission statements, the study theorizes that this commitment might be hollow, suppressing individuality and greater influence.

The research also identified a cyclical pattern, where those charmed by such language are more inclined to use and propagate it, perpetuating a cycle of inauthentic communication among new hires trying to fit in.

Organizational impact of corporate BS

While phrases like “circling back” or “identifying the pain point” can still communicate intent when paired with concrete action, the study warns against a more insidious form of corporate speech. 

When language degenerates into pretentious phrasings of buzzwords: synergizing cross-collateralization, it becomes even more serious, as these phrases sound intense but do not represent any strategy or concept. 

This form of empty rhetoric takes much effort to decode, contributes nothing elsewhere, and ultimately is deadly to a healthy, productive discussion of a business’s actual needs.

This breakdown of communication has more to it than irritation. According to the research, employees can be left dazed and somewhat impressed by such language, yet without a clear direction or plan of action. 

This inability to make decisions and evaluate critically leads to a final loss of concrete progress. The paper recommends that it is easy to get tempted to sanitise and complicate bad news with complex jargon, in an age when layoffs and company restructuring are common. 

Nevertheless, this will cause a lapse in communication, which will be counterproductive to the business’s health.

Litrell warns that “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.”

The study concludes that moving beyond overly complex concepts and prioritizing straightforward, improved communication are key to achieving better workplace results.

“Whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth slowing down when you run into organizational messaging of any kind,” Litrell suggested.

“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.”

The findings indicate that workplaces shaped by empty corporate language may struggle to build the critical thinking and clear communication needed for long-term resilience.