Kenneth Glad
Corporate language often aims to inspire and align teams. Yet new research indicates that the employees most impressed by it may be the least effective when it comes to real decisions.
The findings arrive at a time when workplace communication, especially in hybrid and remote settings, increasingly relies on polished messaging rather than direct discussion.
What stood out most in the Cornell University study was not the jargon itself, but who responded to it. Participants who rated buzzword-heavy statements as insightful were more likely to struggle with practical judgement.
According to The Guardian, the research found a consistent pattern: Those most impressed by corporate phrasing performed worse when asked to navigate hypothetical workplace scenarios.
“The people that are the most susceptible to the corporate bullshit tended to choose the worst solutions to those problems on a consistent basis,” said Shane Littrell, the study’s author.
This raises broader questions for employers. If persuasive language can mask weak reasoning, hiring and promotion decisions based on presentation style alone may overlook more capable thinkers.
Testing the signal
That pattern showed up again during the experiment itself. Researchers combined authentic executive quotes with fabricated lines like “we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing,” then asked over 1,000 professionals to evaluate them.
Those who rated such statements highly scored lower on analytical thinking and reflection when tackling workplace problems.
The study describes this type of communication as “a type of semantically, logically or epistemically dubious information that is misleadingly impressive, important, informative or otherwise engaging,” a definition highlighted in The Guardian’s coverage.
Littrell noted that shared terminology can be useful, but warned against its misuse. “There’s a lot of useful things about the way people in a certain company speak to each other. But it becomes problematic when that turns into nonsense that’s used for misleading purposes,” he said.
Confidence versus competence
The divide is not about education levels. Participants included degree holders across finance, HR and marketing, suggesting the effect cuts across professional backgrounds.
“This isn’t something that only affects people who are less intelligent,” Littrell said. “Anybody can fall for bullshit, and we all, depending on the situation, fall for bullshit when it is kind of packaged up to appeal to our biases.”
As noted by The Guardian, past corporate missteps illustrate the risks. Pepsi’s widely criticised 2009 rebranding language and Elizabeth Holmes’s persuasive rhetoric both showed how compelling messaging can overshadow substance.
Still, there is a twist. Employees more receptive to such language were also more likely to view leaders as “visionary” and report higher job satisfaction, boosting morale even while impairing judgement.
Sources: The Guardian, Cornell University Study
