By KIM BELLARD
We live, it should be said, in the era of shit. Our politicians cannot answer the simplest questions without unleashing a salad of words designed to run out the time until the next question. Our corporations spew endless platitudes about their lofty goals in an attempt to distract us from their mendacious pursuit of profits. And now we have AI that produces endless volumes of words, an unpredictable number of which are not even remotely true.
For better or worse (and, believe me, it has often been for worse), I have always been one to ask “why,” to probe vagueness: whether a teacher, a boss, or a politician. Call me cynical, call me skeptical, call me curious, but I have a low tolerance for nonsense, in its many forms. So I was excited to see that a new study suggests that employees who don’t fall for corporate nonsense can be better employees.
The study is Shane Littrellpostdoctoral researcher and cognitive psychologist at Cornell University, whose research “focuses primarily on how people evaluate and share knowledge, particularly the ways in which misleading information (e.g., nonsense, conspiracy theories, corporate messages) influences people’s beliefs, attitudes, and decisions.”
One wonders what Hey I was like a child.
Their new research presents a new tool called the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), which was “designed to measure susceptibility to impressive but empty organizational rhetoric.”
Your article defines “shit” as “a type of semantically, logically, or epistemically dubious information that is deceptively impressive, important, informative, or otherwise interesting.” and distinguishes it from other types of discourse (such as slang) in that “it is both functionally misleading and epistemically irresponsible.”
“Corporate nonsense is a specific style of communication that uses abstract and confusing buzzwords in a functionally misleading way.” saying Doctor Littrell. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate nonsense confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but semantically it is empty.”
For the current research, he developed a “corporate lie generator” that scrambles and spins sentences from real Fortune 500 business leaders to produce “statements that were syntactically coherent but semantically empty (e.g., “Working at the intersection of cross-assurance and blue-sky thinking, we will actualize a renewed level of end-to-end accreditation and end-state vision.“).” They sound like statements a real person could say that should have meaning, but they don’t.
He then had study participants evaluate those pseudo-statements versus actual statements, rating the “business knowledge” they reflected. like him Cornell Press Release Abridged:
The results revealed a worrying paradox. Workers who were most susceptible to corporate nonsense rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but they also showed lower scores on a portion of the study that assessed analytical thinking, cognitive reflection, and fluid intelligence. Those most receptive to corporate nonsense also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making.
The study found that being more receptive to corporate nonsense was also positively related to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements. Furthermore, those who were more likely to fall for corporate nonsense were also more likely to spread it.
For example, the most gullible sheep are probably not the best workers.
“This creates a worrying cycle,” Dr. Littrell said. “Employees who are more likely to fall for corporate nonsense can help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a kind of negative feedback loop. Instead of a ‘rising tide that lifts all boats,’ a higher level of corporate nonsense in an organization acts more like a clogged toilet of inefficiency.”
Dr. Littrell was quick to point out that falling for corporate nonsense is not a function of intelligence, education, or job duties. count Michael Sainato or the guardian: “This is not something that only affects less intelligent people. Anyone can fall for nonsense, and we all, depending on the situation, fall for nonsense when it is packaged to appeal to our prejudices.”
Likewise, he told Jessica Stillman, writing in inc.: “Unfortunately, nonsense and lying are inevitable. It’s simply part of human behavior, especially in competitive environments… If senior executives communicate in a ‘nonsense’ way, then everyone else will too. They should standardize clearly defining their terms, focus on shorter, more direct sentences, and resist using ambiguous buzzwords.”
“Most of us, in the right situation, can be fooled by language that sounds sophisticated but isn’t,” Dr. Littrell saying. “So, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth stopping when you come across organizational messages of any kind—leadership statements, public reports, advertisements—and asking yourself, ‘What exactly is the statement? Does it really make sense?’ Because when a message relies heavily on buzzwords and slang, it’s often a red flag that you’re being guided by rhetoric rather than reality.”
Ask. That. Ask.
One of my favorite interpretations of the research was by Rupert Goodwins in The Registrywho begins by saying:
Science is at its best when it reveals radical ideas that change our view of the world. This is the flag that all sane people salute, under which we march toward war. However, deep down we know that the tastiest science is the one that confirms our prejudices and validates what we have always known. Cornell University just served up one of the best dishes yet. Eat.
He points to the long history of corporate nonsense, especially in technology and consulting, now getting much worse with AI as “mainstream slime.” Respectively:
This is where we call on the Cornell team to expand and extend their science beyond the general criticism of business jargon and those who create and consume it, however welcome and valuable it may be. The use of this material as a diagnosis is excellent; now use it as a basis for identifying and analyzing the material itself and the mechanisms by which it affects choices and actions.
The scale of receptivity to corporate nonsense is a great start. Now we need the ABRC, the AI Lie Receptivity Scale.
Unfortunately, Dr. Littrell admitted to Ms. Stillman: “The scale is a promising tool for researchers, but it is not yet ready to be used as a high-risk screening instrument by private companies. We still need to investigate it further first.”
Meanwhile, if you have problematic employees who are always asking awkward questions and seeking more clarity on their goals, rather than sidelining them or even firing them, you may want to consider promoting them. They can be your best employees.
Kim is a former e-marketing executive at a major Blues scheme, publisher of the late and lamented Tincture.ioand now a regular contributor to THCB
