“Synergistic leadership”, “Growth hacking paradigms”, “Data-driven approach”, “Cross-synergistic multifunctional approach“: all terminologies of the so-called “corporate dialect”. Yes, a convoluted language, often mixed with an Americanized and rather out of place English, but which “makes a scene”. But a research guided by Cornell University (United Kingdom) shows that those who are impressed by this language tend to make wrong decisions, especially at work.
Business rhetoric is a specific communication style that uses abstract and confusing keywords in a functionally misleading way – explains Shane Littrell, author of the work – Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes simplify office communication, business rhetoric confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty
How the study was conducted
To reach this conclusion, the researchers used in particular the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a tool designed to measure susceptibility to corporate rhetoric, however impressive, but meaningless.
And the results come from a rigorously designed method ad hoc: a “corporate fluff generator” has been developed, capable of producing meaningless but impressive-sounding sentences, such as “We will create a renewed level of complete certification, from birth to death” and “By involving our friends in tent with our best practices, we will test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.”
More than 1,000 employees were then asked to rate the “entrepreneurial worth” of these unsubstantiated computer-generated claims by comparing them with real quotes from leaders of Fortune 500 companies, the magazine’s annual ranking of the 500 largest US corporations. Fortunes based on the turnover of the last fiscal year.
The results (which should make you think)
Divided into four distinct studies, the research verified the statistical validity of the scale as a measure of individual differences in receptivity to company language and, through the use of consolidated cognitive tests, established a correlation between receptivity to company language and analytical thinking skills, known to be essential for work performance.
The findings revealed a troubling paradox: Workers most susceptible to this language rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but they also scored lower on a part of the study that assessed analytical thinking, cognitive reflection, and fluid intelligence. Those who were more receptive to corporate nonsense also scored significantly lower on a test of the effectiveness of workplace decision making.
The study also found that greater receptiveness to corporate terminology was positively related to job satisfaction and feelings of being inspired by corporate mission statements. Furthermore, those who were more likely to be fooled by corporate nonsense were also more likely to spread it.
In essence, the employees most excited and inspired by “visionary” corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective and practical business decisions for their companies.
The possible (and probable) consequences
The results make us reflect, or at least they should, especially on the relationship between image and substance, and its consequences: although everywhere it is possible for people to deceive each other – that is, to share dubious information that appears deceptively impressive or appealing – the working environment not only rewards, but structurally protects this behavior, the researcher states bluntly.
In a workplace where corporate jargon is already the norm, it is easy for ambitious employees to use “corporate fluff” to appear more competent or accomplished, thus accelerating their rise to the top and their influence in the workplace. In other words, those who have little substance, but a great desire (and in a certain sense also ability) to appear win at work.
This creates a worrying vicious cycle – explains Littrell – Employees who are more inclined to be fooled by corporate nonsense could help promote the type of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a sort of vicious circle
But the medium to long-term consequences can backfire on the companies themselves: in fact, when lies go too far or are exposed, real damage to reputation or finances can occur, the study concludes.
Overall, the findings suggest that while “cross-guarantee synergization” may sound impressive in a boardroom, this factually misleading language can create a kind of information blindness in corporate cultures, exposing businesses to reputational and financial damage.
Many of us, under the right circumstances, can be fooled by language that sounds sophisticated but isn’t. That’s why, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth slowing down when you come across corporate messages of any kind, such as statements from leaders, public reports, advertisements, and ask yourself what exactly the statement is, if it really makes sense. Because when a message relies heavily on buzzwords and jargon, it’s often a red flag that you’re being guided by rhetoric rather than reality
The scale developed in this study offers practical applications and may one day provide insight into the analytical thinking and decision-making tendencies of job candidates.
There’s still a lot of work to do, but for now it’s a promising tool for researchers
The work was published on Personality and Individual Differences.
Sources: Cornell University / Personality and Individual Differences
