We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
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.
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.
Okay just for fun, I wanted to take a stab at trying to understand some of the examples mentioned in the article.
We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing.
We're gonna do a really good job of making passwords (or degrees?) that last a lifecycle.
By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.
By convincing people we can do our jobs well, we're gonna prove we're really good at listening.
For instance, a leaked 2009 Pepsi marketing presentation with language such as “The Pepsi DNA finds its origin in the dynamic of perimeter oscillations…our proposition is the establishment of a gravitational pull to shift from a transactional experience to an invitational expression …”
uhhh okay this is tough. how about:
Pepsi is known for waves (maybe lmao? i genuinely don't know what perimeter oscillations is trying to say). We want to make people feel like buying Pepsi isn't just buying something but is an invitation.
Our device strategy must reflect Microsoft’s strategy and must be accomplished within an appropriate financial envelope
oh this actually isn't that hard: "Corporate cut our budget."
For instance, a leaked 2009 Pepsi marketing presentation with language such as “The Pepsi DNA finds its origin in the dynamic of perimeter oscillations…our proposition is the establishment of a gravitational pull to shift from a transactional experience to an invitational expression …”uhhh okay this is tough. how about:
Pepsi is known for waves (maybe lmao? i genuinely don’t know what perimeter oscillations is trying to say). We want to make people feel like buying Pepsi isn’t just buying something but is an invitation.
LOL that one's a mess.
"Perimeter oscillations" sounds to me like a way to describe shifts in consumer opinions and preferences. A really dumb way. But who knows? Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of marketing execs?
I get the same feeling from corpo-speak as I get from bad poetry. Like the author runs all their ideas through a few rounds of mutations, out of fear of being seen as simple. The goal is not to be understood, but to make yourself harder to criticize.
Time ago, I interacted with a vendor contact who was an expert at using such corpo-jargon—it was a masterclass in listening to English sentences devoid of meaning every time she spoke in meetings. If it was 40 years in the future she’d probably have a bunch of cyberwear and a whole team of corpo-ninjas at her disposal.
She is no longer employed by said vendor (or moved to a different project/disposed of by corpo-ninjas on their end—who knows).
Hope she’s still making the big money saying literally nothing.
Also glad I don’t gotta get talked at by her anymore.
If you need an example give a listen to Weird Al's 'Mission Statement'
Corporate bullshit is done by talkers, not by makers.
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!
Makes sense to me... bullshitters LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE lingo... the people that really know their stuff are able to ELI6 most complex issues
My nemesis at my previous job was a major bullshitter and everyone knew it, except some management. Woe be to those who actually listened to him - it never ended well for them. Other managers knew better, or at least were warned.
Nice guy, but a complete moron professionally.
I recall one time he was telling a group of us about a test he and management wanted to do. "No changes to the software," he said, repeatedly. Looking around the room, I knew no one believed him (well, he believed it, I'm sure, but no one else), but we all knew it was pointless to point out that he would be proven wrong. And he was, of course. (He wasn't a liar, just an idiot.)
This dude would do everything he could to make me look bad, sometimes in front of external groups, other times in front of management. I never complained, but others complained to his supervisor on my behalf, and he'd apologize, then do it again a few months later. Again, it wasn't malice, he's just an idiot and doesn't think.
One time I got him. He asked if we had planned for a workload that was higher than some people expected, and I was able to say, "Actually we budgeted for even more than this." A woman that worked for me, when she saw I was having a bad day, would ask, "Hey remember when you showed up Bob in that meeting in front of management?" It always improved my mood. Some coworkers are gold.
One time, he was set to become my supervisor, and I was like, yeah, I'm gone if that happens. Fortunately, it didn't.
I had a guy like this at a previous job. Same story with everything. The guy was a self-proclaimed master of weird languages that no one ever used.
He actually managed to become my supervisor. I immediately went to the big boss and told him I would quit if it happened. The boss confirmed that he would become my supervisor and it was a final decision.
I quit. What's weird is that I was the only macOS/iPhone developer at the time in a mostly Windows company. They struggled for a few months after I left, and they closed the company.
That guy is now a manager at a fast food. I pity the employees who work with him.
Hell, a business strategy shouldn't even be that complex. Complexity in it should stem from depth and details, not fancy words or difficult concepts
I think a lot of this kind of bullshit is more of an HR strategy rather than actual business strategy, but most of those are probably just as vapid.
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:
Jordan Peterson enters the chat
I never thought of it like that before but yeah, you're right, he just spouts Manosphere Corpospeak!
Before he became mainstream, he was asked if he believes in god, and he started with "what do you mean by god?" and went on jibber jabber without actually answering yes or no. I didn't take him seriously since. Two years later, I was surprised he became popular. But anyway, his meandering and sophistry without addressing the main premise has always been his MO, especially with the trademark question "what do you mean..."
The results of this study will undoubtedly produce a sea change in corporate culture while simultaneously creating opportunities for cross functional collaboration resulting from this paradigm shift. /s
Now I'm going to piggyback off this and open the cupboards on a few more details. When we approach a shift of this magnitude it's important to fail fast and fail often. Tightening those decision loops will really embrace a lean model needed to get the seismic action we're after, think Wozniak, Gates, Musk here. Let's put our best ideas into the meat grinder and make some fucking sausage!
Let's take this discussion offline.
Jesus H. I thought they probably skipped corporate shitspeak at those particular companies. That's the cringiest mental pic of the night.
Ouch.
Mad respect for making me cringe so hard.
Kinda knew that. Number one reason I would never take an office job.
You learn it, you climb the ladder, you bring your kids a higher paycheck. Literally we're conditioned to learn it like dogs
Duh, and/or hello.
One of my last jobs I started entry-level clerical work but I noticed everyone in the office was talking like this, so I started in on it, I would take advantage of meetings and group projects to just spout utter bullshit like "We really have to circle our wagons and take some of this conversation offline so we can maximize the returns from our diversity" and holy shit did it have an impact. I was promoted before my first year was up, I was invited to more and more meetings, I was treated like a manager before I was even given the role. I was eventually laid off when the company was bought out by private equity but not before climbing to higher management.
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.
Corpospeak serves an important purpose though. It's how they identify the correct people to fail upwards.
To analyse the impact of this study I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
Your connection from premise to results is too tangible, vague it up a bit
We need to empower a multidisciplinary workgroup to establish a performative analysis of our process capabilities from a data driven perspective relative to this newly published benchmark.
It's almost like the ability to confidently blather insane buzz words has no connection to the ability to do any work whatsoever.
And now we have LLMs...
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.
I get that.
Going backward, I agree with you.
Open kimono?
Basically "tell us your secrets" or "show you're not hiding anything".
Back in the day, westerners thought samurai would open their kimonos to show they're not hiding a sword. That wasn't really a thing but that's why it's a phrase (or was anyway)