Psychologists Have a New Way to Measure ‘Corporate Bullshit’—and It Reveals a Surprising Secret About Performance
You should circle back for a confab with workers who are deeply into blue-skying ideas. They may not be a synergistic fit for your outfit.
Jargon walks a fine line. To insiders, it's efficient shorthand for complex concepts. To outsiders, it can feel like an exclusionary wall. But emerging research suggests a third perspective: an excessive fondness for corporate buzzwords may signal something deeper—and potentially problematic—about how a person thinks and works.
The "Corporate Bulls**t Receptivity Scale"
Cornell cognitive psychologist Shane Littrell has introduced what he calls the *Corporate Bulls**t Receptivity Scale* (CBRS), a framework for understanding how employees engage with empty corporate language. As Littrell defines it, corporate BS isn't just jargon—it's "semantically empty and often confusing communication that leverages abstruse buzzwords in a functionally misleading way."
That definition itself uses elevated language, which Littrell acknowledges is intentional. Technical terms *can* clarify complex ideas—think AI architecture or supply-chain logistics. But corporate bullshit? It obscures more than it illuminates.
Where Corporate BS Shows Up (And Why)
Littrell's research identifies common scenarios where hollow language thrives:
- **Avoiding discomfort**: Managers using vague phrasing to sidestep direct feedback during performance reviews
- **Covering knowledge gaps**: Team members deploying buzzwords when asked to weigh in on unfamiliar topics
- **Impression management**: Employees using inflated language to appear more competent or strategic
- **Brand polishing**: Mission statements crafted for public appeal rather than operational clarity
- **Stakeholder theater**: Reports and communications designed to impress investors more than inform
The Real Risk: When Appreciation Becomes Uncritical Adoption
Here's the critical finding: It's not just *using* corporate BS that's concerning—it's *loving* it. Employees who rate buzzword-heavy language as "profound," "insightful," or "highly informative" tend to score lower on measures of analytic thinking. They're also more likely to generate or accept other forms of workplace nonsense, potentially leading to weaker strategic decisions.
In short: Fluency in language doesn't guarantee fluency in judgment.
Real-World Examples of BS Backfiring
- **Pepsi, 2009**: A leaked internal brief described the brand's strategy as rooted in "perimeter oscillations" and called for shifting "from a transactional experience to an invitational expression." The result? Widespread media mockery and confusion about what Pepsi actually stood for.
- **Amazon, 2025**: CEO Andy Jassy's layoff announcement opened with 15 paragraphs of aspirational language about "making customers' lives better" before revealing job cuts tied to AI integration. Critics argued the verbose framing diluted accountability and delayed clarity for affected employees.
The Fine Line: Utility vs. Vulnerability
Littrell emphasizes that most people can occasionally be swayed by sophisticated-sounding language. The danger arises when organizations elevate employees who not only use but *prefer* hollow rhetoric. This can create a negative feedback loop: BS-tolerant staff promotes BS-prone leaders, who then normalize even more opaque communication.
What You Can Do: A Practical Checklist
Littrell offers straightforward strategies to counter corporate BS—both in consuming and producing messaging:
1. **Slow down**. Resist the urge to skim or accept polished language at face value.
2. **Ask clarifying questions**:
- *What exactly is being claimed here?*
- *Does this statement hold up under scrutiny, or does it rely on vague prestige?*
3. **Watch for buzzword density**. Heavy use of terms like "synergy," "paradigm shift," or "leveraging core competencies" without concrete examples is often a red flag.
4. **Observe patterns in others**. If a colleague consistently defaults to jargon over substance, consider whether it reflects strategic thinking—or a gap in it.
Jargon isn't inherently bad. Precision matters, and shared terminology can accelerate collaboration among experts. But when language becomes a substitute for clarity—or worse, a tool for evasion—it undermines decision-making, trust, and performance.
Littrell's research invites a simple but powerful shift: value substance over style. In a world awash in polished messaging, the ability to cut through the noise isn't just a communication skill—it's a leadership advantage.