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.”
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).
deleted by creator
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.
This is hilarious.
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.
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?
Paradigm by itself is useful in computer science. A lot of corpo speak comes from terms initially created for agile, but eventually scrum masters were not the engineers and the useful words that were used a describers are now used as content. Agile is a mistake.
I’m fired, aren’t I?
Now now, we don’t use that kind of language here, this is a family company, because our bonds create greater amplification of the synergies between the aligned areas.
HRFamily Relations will have a constructive discussion about your behavior paradigm within the familySo… Everybody okay with synergizing this paradigm then?
The worst part about it is that if they were actually good at that, they would be extremely valuable. Getting different, unrelated groups who all function in different ways pointing in the same direction is like herding cats, and cat herders are highly sought after in most industries.
It’s just anyone who’s good at it would never call it ‘synergizing paradigms’.
Oh yes. The rest of you, get to work on thinking of a name. Like Poochie, but more proactive.
So…
Everyone ok with “Poochie”?
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.”
The “clogged toilet of inefficiency” is my new favourite metaphor!
Corporate bullshit is done by talkers, not by makers.
Open kimono?
Yeah, this can’t be a real one, right?
I’ve heard it before…
Duh, and/or hello.
Corpospeak serves an important purpose though. It’s how they identify the correct people to fail upwards.
