Susceptibility to BS and stupidity are correlated.

"Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals."

"In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence."

"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."

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs | Cornell Chronicle

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by Genady

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Susceptibility to BS and stupidity are correlated.

"Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals."

"In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence."

"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."

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs | Cornell Chronicle

And bears shit in the woods............

This has always been obvious to any independent-minded person working in a corporation. In my >30 years at Shell I was repeatedly struck by the ability of members of the Committee of Managing Directors to speak in clear and simple language, quite unlike many of the senior managers beneath them. I was also struck by the tendency of those managers with a burning ambition but rather modest intellect to tend to hide behind buzzwords and management-speak, sometimes to a quite baffling degree. But they used to egg one another on, as if it was some mysterious language to which only they had the key. It got worse over the years. Eventually there was a whole cottage industry of this crap, speaking in generalities, none of it actionable. I recall one particular incident in which I had a meeting with a recently promoted senior manager in the Research division. She spoke at length in answer to one of my questions and I simply could not follow what she was saying at all. So I asked if she could clarify, whereupon I got another equally baffling cloud of buzzwords. So I just said "Thank you very much" and left. There was nothing else to do. (Her research centre was shut down a few years later.)

So my conclusion was the CMD were the real deal, whereas a significant number of their subordinates were faking it.

+1 for reminding me of one important reason why I left staff in favour of contract work.

Corporate BS is a key part of the phenomenon of Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs.[1] This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.[2][3]

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[4] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[5][6]

Somehow I always managed to be the outgroup. Can't imagine why.

I assume that the same correlation holds also for marketing BS, political BS, pop-sci BS, etc.

While you guys talk about past experiences, I'm still living it; at least for another two months til I retire.

Middle managers ( facility level ) get where they got by being good at business baffle-speak; it always impresses during interviews. But their lack of experience dealing with problems and challenges, which are always framed as 'opportunities' for others, means they are too timid to make decisions, good or bad.

If you ask any of them why they deserve higher compensation for their work, they'll tell you it is because they are paid to make crucial decisions, yet the only decisions they seem to make are the times to book meeting rooms to endlessly discuss the issue, and avoid making a decision.

This is also very present for example in university administration. To some degree it might be present in all in-groups as jargon can be used to mask lack of expertise, but also to minimize their own voice.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

If you ask any of them why they deserve higher compensation for their work, they'll tell you it is because they are paid to make crucial decisions, yet the only decisions they seem to make are the times to book meeting rooms to endlessly discuss the issue, and avoid making a decision.

Even worse, it is my contention that higher compensation for decision making should only be afforded if there is also accountability. Yet management has a whole system to avoid or redirect blame (and I feel that nonsensical corporate speak is part of it).

It creates a system where the decision-maker are entirely divorced from what the company/institution is about. I think part of the telling parts when corporate thinking is taking over, if the way they describe their services/products in the most interchangeable way possible. E.g. students, i.e. folks we are supposed to educate are now "clients" or anything sold is now a "product". This way management can take any corporate role without really understanding what they are supposed to create in the first place or demonstrating any tangible expertise with it.

Meanwhile, experienced techs are getting replaced by teenagers with a phone, because, why not?

9 hours ago, Genady said:

Susceptibility to BS and stupidity are correlated.

"Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals."

"In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence."

"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."

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs | Cornell Chronicle

We see a version of that here; people show up with their “groundbreaking” ideas which are just word salad. They might appear to be competent to the average person, but to folks here with expertise it works much less well. Plus, we don’t have a situation where speaking up and asking for clarification would be viewed negatively, while in a corporate setting, saying “I didn’t understand that at all” might not be career-enhancing.