Employees who are impressed by vague corporate language such as “synergistic leadership” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may find it harder to make practical decisions at work, according to a new study from Cornell University. The research suggests that people who respond positively to this kind of buzzword-heavy communication are often less skilled at analysing problems and thinking critically about workplace situations.

The study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, was led by cognitive psychologist Shane Littrell. He created a tool called the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale, designed to measure how easily people are impressed by language that sounds sophisticated but contains little real meaning. The scale helps researchers identify how strongly individuals react to empty corporate rhetoric that appears intelligent but lacks substance.

According to Littrell, corporate “bullshit” refers to a style of communication that relies on abstract buzzwords and confusing phrases. Unlike technical terminology, which can sometimes help professionals discuss complex work more clearly, this kind of language often does the opposite. It can make statements sound impressive while hiding the fact that they communicate very little. The result is speech that creates the appearance of expertise without actually explaining anything useful.

Although misleading language can appear in many situations, workplaces can sometimes encourage it. In environments where corporate jargon is common, employees may use complicated buzzwords to appear knowledgeable or ambitious. Because this language can make people seem confident and authoritative, it may help them gain influence or move ahead in an organisation even when the message itself is vague.

To test how people respond to this type of communication, Littrell built a computer programme that generated meaningless but impressive-sounding corporate phrases. More than 1,000 office workers were asked to judge how “business savvy” these statements sounded, alongside real quotes from corporate leaders. The results showed a clear pattern: participants who rated the empty statements highly tended to perform worse on tests measuring analytic thinking, reasoning ability, and practical decision-making.

The findings suggest a troubling cycle within some organisations. Employees who are more impressed by corporate buzzwords are also more likely to view jargon-using leaders as charismatic or visionary. This can allow ineffective leadership styles to gain support, while clear and practical communication becomes less valued. Littrell suggests that workers should pause when encountering messages full of buzzwords and ask a simple question: What is actually being said? If the language sounds impressive but lacks clear meaning, it may be a warning sign that rhetoric is replacing real substance.

More information: Shane Littrell, The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale: Development, validation, and associations with workplace outcomes, Personality and Individual Differences. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2026.113699

Journal information: Personality and Individual Differences Provided by Cornell University