Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
Employees who are impressed by vague corporate buzzwords like “synergistic leadership” tend to score lower on tests of analytic thinking and workplace decision-making, according to a new Cornell study. Commenters largely see this as confirming what many in tech already suspect: corporate jargon often signals credulity and poor judgment rather than competence, while also helping to obscure responsibility and avoid hard truths. Others note that such language can function as in‑group signaling and coded communication in large organizations, making it socially useful even as it degrades clarity and effectiveness.
Overall reaction
- Many see the findings as obvious: people impressed by vacuous corporate language tend to be less analytically sharp and worse at decision-making.
- Others welcome having empirical backing as something to point to at work, even if it feels like “water is wet” science.
- Some note the headline itself uses mild corporate euphemism (“might be bad at their jobs” ≈ “might be dumb”).
Study design, validity, and limits
- Debate over falsifiability:
- Critics claim the conclusions are so broad they’re unfalsifiable “horoscope science.”
- Defenders point out the study correlates a bullshit-receptivity scale with established cognitive and decision-making tests; those correlations could have come out null or reversed.
- Several remind that the study uses lab measures, not direct on-the-job performance, so “bad at their jobs” is an extrapolation.
What corporate bullshit is and why it exists
- Distinction drawn between:
- Technical jargon: precise within a domain.
- Corporate bullshit: abstract, impressive-sounding, semantically thin or empty.
- Suggested functions:
- Obfuscation, plausible deniability, and “smoke screens” around layoffs and failures.
- Emotional buffering: softening harsh realities, diffusing conflict, and avoiding accountability.
- Coded language: euphemistic signals to managers (e.g., “align” or “synergize” implying cuts or redundancy).
Signaling, status, and promotion
- Corp-speak is framed as in‑group signaling and status language, similar to dialects/subcultures.
- Some argue those who like or generate it help elevate dysfunctional leaders who use it; others counter that promotions are decided above the rank‑and‑file and based more on results and reputation.
- Several note executives code‑switch: plain talk in private, bullshit in town halls.
Impact on organizations and workers
- Corporate BS is described as lowering information content, slowing decisions, and acting like a “clogged toilet” rather than a “rising tide.”
- Yet BS‑receptive employees may be more satisfied and inspired by missions, fitting well in BS‑heavy cultures even if analytically weaker.
Parallels in tech and programming
- Some compare corporate jargon to overused OOP/design patterns, “Clean Code” dogma, or Agile/Scrum buzzwords—helpful in moderation, cultish and obfuscating when overapplied.
HN meta and culture
- Commenters note that anti‑BS articles are perennial HN favorites and discuss shifts in HN tone over the years, from more toxic/certain to somewhat more supportive.