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.

Guess which workers the supervisors like and want to see more and promote and which ones they really want to get rid of?

BTW, AI text also is interesting to evaluate in this context.

I think it’s a complex problem. A lot of these “buzzwords” are actually quite semantically rich, if used correctly. “Synergy” refers to the principle of mutually advantageous reinforcement between factors, like the “three sisters” technique in agriculture. “Paradigm” is a concise word to denote an established, standard framework or perspective.

They are technical jargon, when used correctly. Used responsibly, they can convey a great deal of information with high semantic density. The problem arises when they’re transformed into buzzwords, layered in confusing or abstract ways.

Okay just for fun, I wanted to take a stab at trying to understand some of the examples mentioned in the article.

We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing.

We’re gonna do a really good job of making passwords (or degrees?) that last a lifecycle.

By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.

By convincing people we can do our jobs well, we’re gonna prove we’re really good at listening.

For instance, a leaked 2009 Pepsi marketing presentation with language such as “The Pepsi DNA finds its origin in the dynamic of perimeter oscillations…our proposition is the establishment of a gravitational pull to shift from a transactional experience to an invitational expression …”

uhhh okay this is tough. how about:

Pepsi is known for waves (maybe lmao? i genuinely don’t know what perimeter oscillations is trying to say). We want to make people feel like buying Pepsi isn’t just buying something but is an invitation.

Our device strategy must reflect Microsoft’s strategy and must be accomplished within an appropriate financial envelope

oh this actually isn’t that hard: “Corporate cut our budget.”

Time ago, I interacted with a vendor contact who was an expert at using such corpo-jargon—it was a masterclass in listening to English sentences devoid of meaning every time she spoke in meetings. If it was 40 years in the future she’d probably have a bunch of cyberwear and a whole team of corpo-ninjas at her disposal.

She is no longer employed by said vendor (or moved to a different project/disposed of by corpo-ninjas on their end—who knows).

Hope she’s still making the big money saying literally nothing.

Also glad I don’t gotta get talked at by her anymore.

Corporate bullshit is done by talkers, not by makers.

Golden.

Essentially, the employees most excited and inspired by “visionary” corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective, practical business decisions for their companies.

“This creates a concerning cycle,” 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.”

If you need an example give a listen to Weird Al’s ‘Mission Statement’

Makes sense to me… bullshitters LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE lingo… the people that really know their stuff are able to ELI6 most complex issues

The results of this study will undoubtedly produce a sea change in corporate culture while simultaneously creating opportunities for cross functional collaboration resulting from this paradigm shift. /s

The purpose of a system is what it does.

If an organization rewards empty bluster and ChatGPT-driven corporate drivel, then that it is because those things are the organization’s purpose.

Corporate lingo is a social filter for humanoid shitweasels to identify their peers and control eventual threats.
Nothing is more menacing to an incompetent manager than an underling speaking the truth. Thankfully corporate lingo allows underlings to be dismissed out of hand because either:

• they didn’t use the correct lingo (“Steve fired the only guy who knew how that machine worked and ain’t nobody got time to figure it out because every other machine is falling apart as we speak” -> you get muted on teams and a meeting is booked with HR)
• they did use the the correct lingo which is - entirely by design! - devoid of negative turns of phrase (“our rightsizing efforts mean that other team members will have to step up and synergize” -> sounds fine, deal with it, next topic).

Jordan Peterson enters the chat

One of my last jobs I started entry-level clerical work but I noticed everyone in the office was talking like this, so I started in on it, I would take advantage of meetings and group projects to just spout utter bullshit like “We really have to circle our wagons and take some of this conversation offline so we can maximize the returns from our diversity” and holy shit did it have an impact. I was promoted before my first year was up, I was invited to more and more meetings, I was treated like a manager before I was even given the role. I was eventually laid off when the company was bought out by private equity but not before climbing to higher management.

I’m sorry, but “synergizing” and “paradigm”, aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I’m accusing them of anything like that—

I’m fired, aren’t I?

You learn it, you climb the ladder, you bring your kids a higher paycheck. Literally we’re conditioned to learn it like dogs

Corpospeak serves an important purpose though. It’s how they identify the correct people to fail upwards.