YA THINK?
“Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Arts and Sciences. “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.”
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.
Kinda knew that. Number one reason I would never take an office job.
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.
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.
You learn it, you climb the ladder, you bring your kids a higher paycheck. Literally we’re conditioned to learn it like dogs
Corporate bullshit is done by talkers, not by makers.
Duh, and/or hello.
Open kimono?
Yeah, this can’t be a real one, right?
I’ve heard it before…
Jordan Peterson enters the chat
I never thought of it like that before but yeah, you’re right, he just spouts Manosphere Corpospeak!
Before he became mainstream, he was asked if he believes in god, and he started with “what do you mean by god?” and went on jibber jabber without actually answering yes or no. I didn’t take him seriously since. Two years later, I was surprised he became popular. But anyway, his meandering and sophistry without addressing the main premise has always been his MO, especially with the trademark question “what do you mean…”
he started with “what do you mean by god?”
Sounds about right lmao
It’s almost like the ability to confidently blather insane buzz words has no connection to the ability to do any work whatsoever.
In my experience people who use a lot of corporate buzzwords do it to obfuscate their own incompetence.
Try asking those people to explain their buzzwords in more detail or give an example. It’ll become clear if they even know what they are saying.
My most-hated blather expression is “going forward”, as in “we’re going to do a better job going forward”. Just completely unnecessary when used with verbs in future tense – which is the only time it’s ever used. I hate it almost as much as “folks”.
I agree with you on the “going forward” part. It sounds inane. “Folks” on the other hand I disagree with for two reasons. One, where I live, it’s a pretty standard term, as in “hey there folks” as well as a synonym for “parents” depending on context.
The other, I’ve started using it as a gender neutral in place of things like “ladies and gentlemen.” People who get mad about using peoples’ correct pronouns, aka conservative assholes, are completely blind to it being for that purpose. While it’s not something that matters very often for me, it’s useful and therefore just an easy habit to adopt that’s harmless in all contexts.
My main beef with “folks” is when politicians use it instead of “people” to give off a fake down-homey vibe.
Going backward, I agree with you.
Corpospeak serves an important purpose though. It’s how they identify the correct people to fail upwards.
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).
