Preamble

I have to admit that I am a little surprised to find myself writing a series of articles on ‘organizational bullshit.’ At first glance, this is not my area of specialist expertise. But the more I have reflected on this topic, the more I have realized that I am at least partially qualified to contribute an opinion, as I believe any person is who has spent 30 years working deep in organizations. ‘Organizational bullshit’ is a systemic issue that touches all corners of business, meaning most people who’ve built a career are consciously or unconsciously fluent in its dynamics.

Before you dive into the main content, let me address a few elephants in the room:

Firstly, as you read through these articles you’re going to see the word ‘bullshit.’ A lot. But, this is not mere vulgarity. As you will see, ‘Organizational bullshit’ is a credible and growing topic of academic research. To examine it, understand it and address it, we need to call it by its name.

Secondly, by writing these opinion pieces, I am in no way pointing fingers and suggesting that I am immune to bullshitting. Despite a naturally low tolerance for bullshit, I have also played the corporate game. I have been relatively successful in business, partly because I learned how to balance competence and bullshitability. So, my aim in these articles is not just to shine a light on the phenomenon of organizational bullshit and hopefully help improve the business environment; it’s also to keep myself honest and accountable so that I can constantly get better at this stuff.

As for my motives in writing these pieces: for most of my career, I have received feedback that I can be too direct, even ‘blunt’ or ‘lacking in tact.’ I don’t dispute these comments – I know that I have usually not been particularly diplomatic when I suspect I’m encountering bullshit. As a leader, this has been a struggle sometimes, because while I recognize the need for sensitivity in people management (and have worked at developing this capacity), I’m also careful not to lose the essence of who I am, something that is central to the embodiment of ‘authentic leadership.’ Appreciating corporate bullshit for what it is has not only helped me become better at catching my own bullshit – something I believe every responsible leader should aim to do – but also enabled me to depersonalize it. Hopefully that allows me to be more effective in helping my peers de-prioritize their team members’ bullshitting abilities in performance reviews and promotion cases.

Before focusing on cyber-kinetic security, I was in law enforcement and counterintelligence. For 20+ years, I also ran a non-profit that fought against sexual exploitation of children, and child slavery. So, the well-being of others has always been close to my work and has helped me laser in on what’s ultimately most important. With that clear in my mind, I’ve never had too much time or patience for corporate bullshit, but now it has become even more urgent for me to find a healthy way to reduce bullshit in the teams I lead and work in. As I mention in Part 1, in my area of work – cyber-physical systems security (CPSSEC) / Operational Technology (OT) security / cyber-kinetic security world, previously disconnected specialisms like IT, engineering and management consulting are required to work together. This becomes difficult due to cultural differences, one of which is a varying tolerance for bullshit. So, in trying to make OT / cyber-kinetic security experts out of IT people and management consultants, I need to train them to focus more on objective, measurable, life-saving benefits. We all have to learn to cut the bullshit.

Finally, I recently took a more active role in making PwC Canada an employer of choice for neurodiverse people, and one of the things I’ve learned is that some of the best neurodiverse performers often have a very low tolerance for bullshit and are willing to call it out very directly. I’ve been inspired by this. It has confirmed for me that organizational bullshit needs to be dealt with if we are all to deliver the positive impact we hope to through our work. But it has also made it very clear to me that organizations, and those in leadership, need to learn how to better listen to truth-tellers.

Part 1: Why

In the 1990 black comedy, Crazy People, Dudley Moore plays an advertising executive named Emery Leeson who, in the middle of a nervous breakdown, starts designing blunt, frank ads with slogans like “Buy Volvos – they’re boxy, but they’re good” and “Forget France. The French can be annoying. Come to Greece. We’re nicer.” This drift into truthfulness earns Leeson a stay in a psychiatric facility, but when his ads are accidentally printed and lead to record sales, Leeson and his fellow patients at the sanatorium are hired to be the creative force behind a new brand of “honest” or “no-nonsense” advertising. From thereon, the plot follows a predictable course as Leeson and his crew become the heroes in a battle against the mercenary owner of the advertising firm. However, the filmmaker’s point is still clearly made: advertising is full of bullshit.

There’s nothing particularly groundbreaking about this view, of course. Industries like advertising, sales, and marketing are routinely accused of being built on bullshit, but what the film represents is an intention to call that out; an intention that has, until recently, been mainly missing from broader public discourse; an intention that I passionately share.

Because it’s not just the commercial areas of business that have become infected with bullshit, it’s the whole operation. If you’ve ever sat through a 100-slide PowerPoint presentation, or read a corporate mission statement and wanted to wretch a little, or paged through a case study that had no relationship with reality, or been in a meeting where you felt like you were drowning in jargon and corporate acronyms, or felt confused and bewildered as your CEO “moved to align all stakeholders” during a Town Hall, you’ll know what I mean. It’s painful. It’s wrong. And it has to change.

Not just swearing, I swear

As tempting as it may be, I have not written this article as an excuse to say “bullshit” over and over and thereby vent some of my frustration at the state of the world (although there might be a bit of that too). “Organizational bullshit” is not an expletive; it is an academically referenced term at the center of a broadening body of serious and legitimate research. In his 1986 essay, “On Bullshit,” which later developed into a book by the same name, Princeton philosopher, Harry G. Frankfurt, was the first to look at the phenomenon through a more analytical lens, making it something that can be identified and, therefore, addressed.

Frankfurt proposed that bullshit and lying, for example, are not the same thing. This is not immediately obvious when looking at accepted definitions: the Merriam-Webster dictionary recognizes bullshit as an informal vulgar term meaning “to talk nonsense, especially with the intent of misleading or deceiving,” while a lie is “an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive.“

In both cases, it seems deception is the ultimate goal, but Frankfurt points out the subtle but important difference between the liar and the bullshitter:

“The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values,” says the scholar. “In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true.”

In other words, the liar is defined by having some sort of relationship to the truth, even if what comes out of his mouth is the total opposite. In some perverse way, he respects the truth, at least enough to recognize it as something real and worth subverting.

The bullshitter, however, has no such regard for the truth – in fact, he is not interested in it at all. According to André Spicer, who literally wrote the book on business bullshit:

“Bullshitters do not lie. They don’t try to cover up the gap between what they are saying and how things really are. Bullshitters are indifferent to how things really are. They don’t care about whether their claims conflict with reality. All they care about is whether people will listen.”

The guiding line for this type of person is not truth (honesty) or the corruption of truth (lying), but rather whatever needs to be said to further his own interests (bullshit). This disconnection from truth makes a bullshitter more challenging to spot and more difficult to hold accountable because, in effect, what are they actually doing wrong? Unlike lying, which can be measured against some standard of truth, bullshitting is mostly a mix of exaggeration, inflation, misinformation, misdirection, and (often spectacular) invention.

Upon encountering bullshit, you may have an intuitive feeling that something is untrue, but that does not make it a lie, at least not in any black and white sense. And, to challenge the dictionary definition listed above, bullshitting is not the same as talking nonsense. Nonsense is just, well, nonsense, but bullshit pretends to offer some degree of meaning or truth that is non-existent. This is what makes bullshit so uncomfortable and exasperating to deal with – we know that something is not right, but we can’t quite put our finger on why.

As a result, we usually don’t deal with bullshit; we ignore it or tolerate it, often with a mixture of frustration and resignation. We shake our heads at the politician on TV, grit our teeth at the dinner party guest who knows everything, or inwardly roll our eyes when the boss makes another grandiose claim about the future of the business. This tolerance may be understandable, but it’s not healthy and, in my opinion, makes a bad problem worse, especially in the workplace.

There is a global pandemic of business bullshit, except, for this pandemic, there is no vaccine rollout, and self-isolation is not a solution (no matter how tempting it may sometimes be). Tolerance needs to be replaced with action. Bullshit is not harmless; it needs to be dealt with directly, and the conditions that encourage it need to be addressed.

What is organizational bullshit, where does it come from, and why is there so damn much of it?

Bullshit can be confusing – that’s partly why it’s so difficult to deal with – but as the subject is studied more and more, we are learning ways to recognize it more easily. Analyses by McCarthy et al suggest that there are three components to organizational bullshit:

1. Regard for truth
2. Bullshit language
3. The boss

1.     Regard for truth

In his 2006 book, On Bullshit, Harry Frankfurt declares that a bullshitter has “a lack of connection or concern for the truth” and a remarkable “indifference to how things really are.” This type of character is not, however, bullshitting for the sake of it (even though some career bullshitters seem to enjoy the game itself) – there is always something at stake. For those looking to climb the management ladder, bullshit – with its hollow language, denial of facts and data, and vague references to unquantifiable phenomena – is often a helpful tool in establishing an aura of authority. Bullshit makes you sound smarter, more knowledgeable and more qualified than you actually are, making you more likely to be promoted.

Even for those less Machiavellian in their motivations, bullshit can provide people with a sense of self-confidence, something to help them cover the gaps between what they do know and what they don’t. It’s easier to feel empathy for this person than for the one who bullshits purely for raw personal gain, but in both cases, the truth is still subverted to personal interest.

Let’s not be too judgemental here, though. Most people have had to ‘fake it till they make it’ at some point in their career, especially when they find themselves in a new role. There is clearly an element of bullshitting involved in such cases. So, it probably has value if it’s short-term and helps create a bridge to a place where the person can operate from genuine experience and understanding. Bullshit can also have a cultural role to play. Banter and exchanges of general nonsense – none of which have much regard for the truth – are often crucial to keeping a team connected and cohesive. But culture is where things start to get sticky.

Different teams and different organizations have different cultural attitudes to bullshit. In my focus area, the biggest challenge is that we sit between traditional engineers (electrical, mechanical, automation, process etc.), IT, and management consultants. These groups never had to work together before the explosion of cyber-physical systems / Industry 4.0. Now they are forced to collaborate, but they keep failing because of cultural differences, one of them being a much lower bullshit tolerance among engineers when compared to e.g. management consultants.

2.     Bullshit language

Business is flooded with bullshit language, and its coziest home is in the painful but ubiquitous jargon that makes up so much of the talk in organizations. McCarthy and his fellow researchers argue that “if a statement is riddled with meaningless language, acronyms, buzzwords, and jargon, then it is likely to be bullshit.” You know the feeling: a meeting in which everyone shares what’s ‘on their radar’, the team tries to ‘align’ or ‘sense check’ before ‘drilling down’ into how to ‘leverage’ a new ‘strategy’ in order to achieve ‘synergies’ (for a head-nodding dig into these terms and other forms of unbearable office jargon check out Steven Poole’s excellent ‘Who Touched Base in My Thought Shower?’).

Of course, there are appropriate and credible ways to use all of these words. But more often than not, in the world of everyday business, they become placeholders for real language. They don’t say what they mean. They are like linguistic balloons of hot air, and they are the main reason people regularly walk out of meetings feeling unclear about what was discussed and what’s expected of them going forward.

Perhaps bullshit language is addictive because it gives people a false sense of security. It helps provide them with a feeling of belonging – if you know what the bizarre mix of jargon and acronyms in your industry or organization means, you’re part of the in-crowd; if not, you’re out. André Spicer maintains this is especially true among managers: “Management jargon can help nurture a sense of self-confidence in the chronically insecure world of middle management.” More than that, Spicer says, managers who wholeheartedly embrace this language and become fluent in it appear more capable and are more likely to rise through the ranks faster. That takes us on to our third point.

3.     The boss

Petrocelli argues that people are especially likely to engage in bullshit when they feel knowledgeable about a subject, as many leaders do, and when they are socially and professionally expected to have an opinion, as most leaders are. Finally, bullshit is more common when people sense that they can get away with it, which the authority of leadership helps to ensure. As a result, bullshit in leadership is widespread, and even if the leader is unaware of it, research by McCarthy et al suggests that it does not go unnoticed by their subordinates:

“… employees believe that their superiors are key players in the dissemination of bullshit. Further, employees are likely to have to take action based on any bullshit communicated by their bosses. As a result, employees are likely to be acutely aware when their superiors use bullshit to advance their own self-interests.”

The impact of this pattern is far-reaching and can be profoundly damaging to organizational culture and outcomes. When employees are given bullshit jobs or tasks to perform, they inevitably reach a point where they feel lost and uncertain of their performance. That’s because, by its very nature, bullshit is vague and unclear, so it’s difficult to measure with performance indicators or connect to objectives and results. This is demoralizing for employees who are unable to point to any progress or development, but it also triggers a vicious cycle: without necessary checks in place (see Part 2 in this series), employees have no way of clarifying what is required of them, so they pass the buck further down the chain, usually by adding some extra bullshit to the mix. In the end, the only work that gets done is the work of bullshit, while the central operations of the business, project or team are increasingly neglected.

As a leader of cross-functional teams, I take this aspect of my job seriously –perhaps too seriously if you were to ask some of my colleagues. Quite simply, I know that the level of tolerance for bullshit in my team is set by me. If we are to deliver on what is expected of us, I need to draw a clear line and call bullshit when necessary. That’s not always easy to do, and it’s not always well-received, but it has to be done.

Why this matters

We are living through the Age of Purpose. Gone are the days of businesses having mission statements plastered across their boardroom walls – that’s ‘so nineties’ – nowadays, the fashion is to have a corporate purpose, a defining mantra that describes why the organization exists. In principle, I like this idea. I believe that being clear on why you are doing something can be incredibly valuable, whether you are an individual, a team, or an entire corporation. Or even a mayonnaise.

Unfortunately, corporate mission and purpose statements are a magnet for bullshit. They invite the creation of grand, abstract declarations of celestial intent, full of generic and contextually meaningless terms like ‘impact,’ ‘stakeholders’, ‘people,’ ‘change’, and ‘the future.’ More often than not, these statements bear little resemblance to the genuine operations of the business, fostering cynicism among employees and customers. But that’s not moderating the tendency towards inflationary bullshit. If anything, the trend is getting worse.

As consumers and top talent increasingly consider a company’s values before making buying decisions or deciding where to work, organizations are feeling the pressure to be seen as socially-minded corporate citizens who are committed to making the world a better place for all. Sometimes there is genuine intent behind this, often coming from a maverick CEO, but in the end, it’s the shareholders who’ll have the final say and, since most investors see profit as a business’ primary purpose, high-minded ideas usually stay just that: ideas. As a result, by the time the message reaches the market, it amounts to little more than ‘purpose washing.’ The older cousin of this bent is ‘greenwashing,’ which similarly tries to position the company as having better green credentials than it really does in the hope of attracting ESG investment and improving its brand image among ecologically-minded customers.

It’s easy enough to wave these trends aside as examples of corporate nonsense we just have to live with, but, just like other forms of bullshit, ‘purpose washing’ and ‘greenwashing’ are not harmless. Business will be crucial to solving the wickedly complex problems we face as a species, and bullshit undermines those players who are sincerely trying to help solve these challenges, steering investment in the wrong direction and damaging public trust.

Bullshit also has a debilitating effect at a more micro level. McCarthy et al. suggest organizational bullshit “can result in lower job satisfaction among the organization’s members, increased distrust in leadership, a reduction in productivity, and ultimately a negative impact on overall performance.” André Spicer argues that business bullshit hampers good decision-making, leading to judgment calls separated from facts and data. He also maintains that corporate bullshit, especially when it becomes culturally established, reduces diversity of thinking as those with differing perspectives and opinions are marginalized when their views compete with the interests of the most influential bullshitter(s) in the group. It’s important to note that these conclusions are based on existing research but that there is still not enough empirical data to make these arguments conclusive.

From my experience, the points listed above are all valid considerations, but at its essence, this is a moral issue. In the projects and teams I lead and work in, bullshit threatens our ability to do the job properly. It slows things down, muddies the waters, and lowers the quality of the final product delivered to the client. This is quite simply unacceptable. It’s not right, and I believe organizations should take more deliberate steps to reduce bullshit in the workplace.

How?

Well, that’s the central topic of Part 2 in this series.

Cryptosec is a leading provider of security solutions in the rapidly evolving world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, DeFi. Their specialist investigations arm, Crypto Investigators, offers expert services in blockchain forensics and legal investigations, leveraging deep industry knowledge and advanced investigative techniques to navigate the complexities of the digital age.

The post We need to free organizations of bullshit – Part 1: Why? appeared first on Cryptosec.

Part 2: How

One day, sitting in the shed he called home, the journalist, Oobah Butler, had an idea: he would turn his shed into a fake restaurant and make it the top-rated eatery in London. This audacious thought wasn’t random, though. Before becoming a feature writer for VICE.com, one of Butler’s part-time jobs had been as a review writer. But not just any reviews – these were fake reviews on TripAdvisor paid for by establishments who wanted to improve their business ratings. As he became more entrenched in this work and watched his reviews have real-world effects on restaurant rankings, Butler began to doubt the reality of the whole system, believing that it was all fake, from the reviews to the food, even the restaurants themselves. But surely that couldn’t be possible? Surely one couldn’t fake a physical place? And, if it were possible, wouldn’t that prove that the entire construct was an illusion?

Butler would later acknowledge that the vast majority of restaurants and reviews in the industry are legitimate, but not before he put his suspicions to the test. Over the course of just six months, he managed to get The Shed at Dulwich – a restaurant that didn’t exist – to rise from a ranking of 18,149 on TripAdvisor, perhaps the internet’s most trusted reviews site, to become the number one place to eat in London, one of the world’s biggest cities. How he did this is amusing, impressive, and appalling in equal measure, but he ultimately proved his point: it’s all bullshit.

In Part 1 of this series I introduced bullshit as something that has crept into every corner of society, including business. Especially business. I showed how the word has evolved from vulgar language to an academically-credible term used to describe a growing body of research. In that article, we explored the nature of bullshit, its impact on business, and why it needs to be eliminated. We concluded that corporate bullshit is essentially a moral challenge that requires us to stand up for what’s right. Some of the negative consequences of bullshit include a decrease in job satisfaction, decline in productivity and job performance, ineffective decision-making, growing mistrust in leadership, and a reduction in the authenticity needed for strong interpersonal relationships.

Even if an organization and the careers of those therein are built on bullshit, and everyone is happy with the arrangement, the value generated by that system is significantly sub-optimal. The client, the customer, or society or the environment inevitably suffers.

If you operate from the moral premise that your role at work is to deliver the most value you can – that is, if you believe that providing value is the right thing to do – then bullshit is wrong. It is a hindrance at a time when the world has some major problems to solve. The stakes are even higher in my particular area of focus, cyber-kinetic security. If the work delivered is not up to scratch, cyber-physical systems become vulnerable to attack, and lives are put at risk. In Part 1 of this series, then, we looked at WHY organizational bullshit needs to be done away with; in this article, we look at HOW.

Fighting bullshit with C.R.A.P

In their February 2020 paper, Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit, McCarthy, Hannah, Pitt, and McCarthy propose a step-by-step approach to dealing with workplace bullshit. Appropriately titled C.R.A.P, the framework is more serious than it sounds, mapping out the four basic steps to neutralizing an overabundance of organizational bullshit:

1. Comprehend
2. Recognize
3. Act
4. Prevent

1.    Comprehend

The first step to dealing with bullshit is to understand it. For most people, business bullshit makes perfect sense because everyone has a reference point for it, but few people think of it as an objective phenomenon. So, simply raising awareness of business bullshit – what it is, what it isn’t, how it works, and its adverse effects – can be a simple but accessible entry point for most teams and organizations. As pointed out in Part 1 of this series, there is some unexpected subtlety and nuance in this subject – distinguishing lying from bullshit, for example – and these distinctions can be very useful for individuals to understand.

2.    Recognize

Once someone understands what bullshit is, the next step is to spot it in action. Here the Boy Scouts’ motto holds true: be prepared. Look out for abstract, general language, full of jargon, or unnecessarily convoluted English. Of course, some people develop reputations for bullshit. They are expected to talk a lot of it so it’s easier to spot. More generally, though, a mindset of healthy cynicism keeps one vigilant to baseless claims, avoidance of facts and data, sloppy justification for decisions, and behavior driven by personal agendas. In my work, where cross-functional teams share different expertise, this point translates further into recognizing when people are experts in their particular area and giving that specialist knowledge weight over general opinions. Later in 2020, the same researchers who created the C.R.A.P framework also devised an Organizational Bullshit Perception Scale that measures the volume of bullshit in an organization and the degree to which it is comprehended and recognized.

3.    Act

Even if someone can spot bullshit-in-action, what can they do about it? Typical responses fall into one of four categories:

• Exit: The employee has had enough and leaves the team or organization to get away from the bullshit/bullshitter. For businesses trying to retain top talent, this could be one of the costliest consequences of organizational bullshit.
• Voice: Voicing occurs when employees speak up to confront bullshit, and this is where leaders have a particularly significant impact, for good and for bad. From a negative standpoint, the natural authority of leadership can make bullshitting bosses difficult to challenge. But from a positive standpoint, leaders have an outsized potential to create an environment of psychological safety where people feel comfortable questioning decisions, requesting clarification, asking for data, and holding each other accountable to agreed outcomes – all healthy ways to challenge perceived bullshit.
• Loyalty: This is a typical response to bullshit, especially when the bullshitter holds cultural or organizational power. Employees see the bullshit for what it is but still choose to accept it, often because it is the easiest route or because it serves them somehow. Effectively, though, they become accomplices to the bullshit.
• Neglect: Many people will recognize this reaction in themselves or those around them; it’s a state of willful ignorance or resignation. Employees disengage from the bullshit, the work related to the bullshit (or the bullshitter), and often the organization too; leaving (Exit) would be too costly, so the employee stays, demoralized and negative. Given how often I’ve seen this attitude in businesses, it’s no surprise that global employee engagement levels are still only at about 20%.

4.    Prevent

The final piece of the C.R.A.P framework is to prevent the creation and spread of bullshit in the workplace. This is by far the most effective way to reduce bullshit over the long term, and there are several ways to approach this:

Create environments of trust

As mentioned above, creating psychologically-safe spaces where employees can speak up is crucial to calling out and reducing bullshit. This does not even have to involve calling out bullshit; it can be as simple as a team member feeling okay to say, ‘I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying – please could you explain.’ Most people are afraid of looking ignorant, but in a supportive culture, people feel able to ask for clarification. If the person who’s doing the speaking is bullshitting, this simple question is usually enough to make that clear. Creating environments of trust is not a ‘woo-woo’ notion, nor is trust itself an intangible concept. Edelman’s Trust Barometer is a solid example of how trust can be a quantitatively measured factor in an organization, but by showing leaders how trusted (or distrusted) they are and augmenting this type of analysis with group contributions and dialogue, trust can begin to displace bullshit.

Encourage critical thinking

Despite what they like to believe, many organizations do not promote critical thinking, even though most people would agree it’s a vital skill for a successful business. Critical thinking takes time and consideration; it asks you to weigh up facts and evidence, look at alternative viewpoints, and question not only the thinking of those around you but also your own thinking. As such, it is the anthesis of the superficial, often eloquent but ultimately dressed-up thinking that drives bullshit. Unfortunately, the operational pressures in most businesses mean people are inclined to cut corners in thinking and skip the time required for critical assessment; this is one of the reasons bullshit thrives.

Prize evidence and expertise

A dangerous trap for any leader or manager is to begin to assume that, simply because they have experience, they know intuitively what the right decision is in any particular situation. Intuition and instinct based on experience are an essential part of leadership, but every person has blind spots, so to avoid cognitive biases (wellsprings for bullshit), it is better to rely on evidence. And, to the point above, this is necessary to create a culture of trust where people have the right to ask how a decision was made if they suspect bullshit. Also, while group input or crowdsourcing can be valuable ways to gain broad insight, they can equally muddy the waters and result in decisions based on little substance. Those with the relevant expertise in a decision area should be given a stronger voice. In my line of work, this is less of an issue – engineers, for example, seldom have problems pointing out when people are making incorrect assumptions about their area of specialism – but it is something that needs to be borne in mind, especially as more workplaces move towards cultures of democratized decision-making.

Ban bullshit

This is easier said than done and relies on a strong culture where the first three steps of this process (comprehension, recognition, and action) are already underway. Banning jargon and acronyms, for example, relies on mutual agreement and enforcement. Prohibiting bullshit-generating behavior like unnecessary meetings can be powerful. Still, again, it requires the buy-in of everyone in the team or organization. More than anything, this needs to be modeled from the top, so leaders have to embrace a bullshit-free mindset – a challenging prospect for many organizations.

Stop rewarding bullshit

As I described in the first article of this series, business bullshit is rewarded in various ways. In general, jargon, buzzwords, and bullshit language have such lasting appeal because it lends those who use it a sense of confidence and, often, status. The natural tendency for bullshitters to speak in abstract or ungrounded and aspirational terms fits well in a modern business climate that favors leaders who can talk about ‘vision’ and ‘purpose.’ Spicer suggests that one way to counter these trends is to provide alternative sources of rewards and confidence. By banning or limiting the use of buzzwords and jargon, the legitimacy of bullshit language is decreased, forcing people to seek status from actually doing their jobs well. And importantly, those jobs that receive focus and acknowledgement should include the more modest ones that ensure the business runs well, not just the ‘sexier’ jobs that tend to attract bullshit behavior. Finally, and I agree with Spicer again, organizations need to make ‘stupid’ decisions more costly by tying people to the long-term consequences of their decisions and deferring rewards/bonuses for more extended periods.

Conclusion

One thing I have learned as a leader is that there is no growth without humility – the willingness to admit that you don’t know. In putting together these pieces on organizational bullshit, I have tried to share some of the perspectives gained from my own experience, tempered by the growing research in this area. I certainly don’t have all the answers to fixing what I feel is a potentially toxic trend in organizations, but if we (I, my colleagues, and all of us in business) try to remain curious and committed, it will be harder for bullshit to take root, and we will be more likely have the positive impact we seek.

Cryptosec is a leading provider of security solutions in the rapidly evolving world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, DeFi. Their specialist investigations arm, Crypto Investigators, offers expert services in blockchain forensics and legal investigations, leveraging deep industry knowledge and advanced investigative techniques to navigate the complexities of the digital age.

The post We need to free organizations of bullshit – Part 2: How? appeared first on Cryptosec.

Diversity has made a dent in the public consciousness. With a long-overdue shift from an ethical buzzword into a brand-defining must-have, emerging nuances to diversity have at last begun to take their place on the front burner.

In fact, neurodiversity is now so widely known that it has quickly risen to become a subject of keen interest. Google Trends drops data-backed hints about how much of a crucial role neurodiverse individuals actually play in corporate and social settings — unlike how we have come to view them as outliers.

A close look at the data around the search for the term “Neurodiversity” reveals a sudden spike in traction, especially from 2018 to present. Forward-looking predictions that neurodiversity is set to garner more awareness over time are as sharp as a tack.

All of us must, at some point, have found ourselves frowning upon companies’ poor performance at the “diversity Olympics” — whether it be embracing gender diversity, racial diversity, or other similar incarnations of diversity. Well, now I’ve just tossed one more in your direction to consider: neurodiversity.

Neurodiversity cuts across a broad spectrum of natural human variation in neurological makeup — namely ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), Autism, Dyslexia, and Dyspraxia. To add to this, a Harvard Medical report also did well to throw mood, impulse-control, and anxiety complications into the mix. In layman’s terms: neurodiverse people are competent in particular areas, while somewhat lagging in others. And while this can certainly be true of neurotypical people, it’s often more pronounced in neurodiverse individuals.

The benefits of diversity, especially in tech spaces, are well-documented. Diversity inspires curiosity in heterogeneous teams, which means more robust creative capacity. Diversity creates a level of discomfort that makes teams perform better. But why, then, are claims of diversity being an ethical and a commercial win-win for companies and the neurodiverse people so often met with knee-jerk cynicism? This points to a knowledge gap. An obvious one, if you will.

“Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.” – Alan Turing

However, the crux of this article spotlights a less-pronounced knowledge gap — negative impacts of window-dressing, appearance-only effort which saps away energy from genuine efforts that are aimed at ushering in a working model of diversity in the workplace.

To ask a burning question: why has neurodiversity — the understanding that brain differences should be viewed as normality, and not a deficiency, in the workplace — taken on a fat serving of window-dressing with a side of nonchalance in our workplaces?

More worryingly, how has this whitewashed version of neurodiversity chipped away at the true purpose of neurodiversity policies? How is anything less than true diversity self-defeatist for companies — especially in spaces which could function notably better with neurodiverse talent? (think cybersecurity)

Are neurodiversity policies an act of philanthropy or productivity?

The afore-stated questions should be asked within the context of our business reality. The reality is that true diversity shouldn’t be thought of just as an end in itself — it should also be considered a means to achieving a profitable future.

Without taking anything away from the ethical and moral credentials of neurodiversity, it is understandable why businesses might be reluctant to adopt diversity merely for the sake of it in a cutthroat business environment. After all, even the lure of a glowing brand reputation doesn’t necessarily translate to increased equity. Diversity efforts should make business sense.

Companies need more than just high points on their “diversity” scorecard to cut it — first, they need to remain in business, and then they need to drive sustained growth and value. And while the long-term benefits of neurodiversity (think employee loyalty or a healthy brand reputation) might hold a ton of appeal, there is still an increasing need for companies — especially public companies — to demonstrate a shorter-term nexus between neurodiversity initiatives and an increasingly “on-demand” shareholder value.

For these companies, not only does merely assembling a heterogeneous workforce to beef up inclusivity stats miss the mark on the true essence of neurodiverse recruitment, it is also lamentably shortchanging.

Neurodiversity is not something that should be adopted in isolation as an end in itself; rather, it should be treated as a means to a meaningful, economically viable end — using that heterogeneous workforce to fuel innovation, growth, and gain a competitive edge.

Some characteristics of neurodivergent people

If you’ve ever met one neurodivergent person, then you’ve met one neurodivergent person. Each and every neurodivergent individual out there has their own unique strengths and characteristics. As an example, however, some strengths of individuals on the autism spectrum can include:

• attention to detail
• ability to think “outside the box” and approach a problem from a completely different angle
• strong abilities with systems, such as computer programming and mathematics
• above average visual-spatial skills
• refusal to take things at surface value and performing critical evaluation of everything
• intense, focused interest in a subject
• lower intrinsic pressure to conform to social norms

and many others. Those strengths are often accompanied by characteristics that employers sometimes see as issues, such as:

• lower intrinsic pressure to conform to social norms
• intense, focused interest in a subject
• refusal to take things at surface value and performing critical evaluation of everything
• low social interaction
• inability to initiate or hold a conversation
• fixation on certain routines or rituals
• difficulty maintaining eye contact

Neurodiversity’s biggest bane

You don’t need to be David Attenborough to know that biodiversity is necessary for keeping a complex ecosystem working optimally, and you don’t have to be a Certified Financial Planner to know that having a diverse stock portfolio gives you better possibilities. In the workplace, neurodiversity breeds a different approach to problem-solving and a fresh take on issues. It sums up why neurodiverse individuals have been so quick to embrace the term “differently abled” instead of their obsolete label, “disabled”.

Simple as this term sounds, however, there still hasn’t been much done to take stock of these peculiarities by companies. Regrettably, HR personnel mostly tend to optimize their recruitment operations and performance assessments for neurotypical candidates.

In fact, “culture fit” or “team fit” considerations during recruitment have taken relatively higher importance than even competency questions.

On the surface, this is understandable. Hiring those that “look like us,” “sound like us,” and “think like us” means that they would fit into the workplace more easily, take less time to acclimatize, be easier to coach, and — presumably — stay on longer. Complex problem-solving is a team sport, so clearly, building a collaborative team makes sense. And with this in mind, someone who “fits in” is likely someone who will also go with the flow without presenting any challenges.

Despite the evidence about their results, homogeneous teams without friction feel more effective. Homogeneous teams are easier for management. And easier for HR. Team members in homogeneous teams understand each other better, and the collaboration is smooth, which feels like progress.

Whereas dealing with people who are different causes friction, which feels counterproductive.

And that’s the crux of the problem: in a homogeneous team where the collaboration is smooth, how do you progress if no one challenges anything? How do you innovate? How do you solve complex problems? How do you reach new customers? How do you service clients that are different?

Diversity brings with it tension and constructive conflict — and teams that are able to discuss, debate, (respectfully) challenge one another, exchange opinions, and critically evaluate ideas are significantly better placed to innovate and solve complex problems.

The work may feel harder in heterogeneous teams, but the outcomes are undeniably better.

“What would happen if the autism gene was eliminated from the gene pool? You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and socializing and not getting anything done.” – Dr. Temple Grandin

The systemic rigidity found in existing recruitment and team management approaches that are focused on conflict avoidance, removal of friction in the team, and maintaining the status quo spell out one negative outcome: an untapped pool of potential.

To my mind, this is a reflection of why most neurodiversity policies in their actual application are (at best) window-dressed versions that water down the true essence and meaning of neurodiversity. Achieving true diversity means confronting some of our most ingrained behaviours. Achieving true neurodiversity is probably harder than with any other flavour of diversity. Implementing it can be more challenging than turning a ship in the Suez Canal —so it’s easy to see employees’ tendency to recoil into social bubbles and homogeneous settings. Again, I addressed why we cannot afford to wallow in this comfort zone in this article.

But nothing ever worthwhile comes easy, does it? When responsibility is shared, starting with a paradigm shift that tackles our subconscious bias, the collective burden gets lighter. And the payoff? Enormous. And not just by way of an enhanced brand reputation and public image, but also performance-wise. Of course, this also rewards the company’s bottom line.

Neurodiversity within the cybersecurity space

As traditional HR in the tech space puts a premium on qualities like proficiency in numerical skills, the “team fit,” and other basics, the increasing awareness of neurodiversity benefits has shown that they just might well be missing out on a big piece of the pie.

Vacant cybersecurity jobs globally are projected to clinch a whopping 3.5 million in 2021. Further, the global study undertaken by the ISSA (Information Systems Security Association) and the ESG (Enterprise Strategy Group) shows that this shortage in the cybersecurity space can be linked to more cybersecurity challenges that threaten company operations.

One is tempted to think that the current shortage in cybersecurity should force the hands of HR to tap into a pipeline of neurodiverse employees. After all, it is estimated that around 1 in 7 people (more than 15%) are neurodivergent. But in truth, most often, even when they try to attract neurodiverse candidates, this leads to unrewarding “busywork” lacking in meaningful value contribution.

We, cybersecurity professionals, know better. We are increasingly finding that neurodiverse talents easily hold up to the scrutiny of performance and value — thanks to their uniquely fresh perspective and out-of-the-box thinking they bring to the table. Seemingly opposite angles to problem-solving deliver strong results when dealing with complex cybersecurity issues.

The gist is that diversity — when harnessed on any team — unlocks a greater balance of skills, which thus means more productivity. In neurodiversity terms, it becomes clear that what has hitherto been seen as a skill deficiency is, in fact, a secret weapon. And this is particularly pronounced in the realm of cybersecurity. The possibilities for neurodiverse individuals are limitless, seeing that the cybersecurity industry is suffering a skill shortage that could leave companies short in their bid to combat cyber warfare.

“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.” – Frank Zappa

To further zero in on how neurodiverse talents can prove to be valuable assets, it is worth considering that the cyber battleground is characterized by legions of malicious perpetrators that can mutate their attacks in a blink of an eye, once they have been spotted. They are equally targeting software, hardware, and wetware — the human brain (through social engineering attacks). They are well-funded and patient, which allows them to continually innovate in their attacks.

People on the autism spectrum are known for their uber-concentrated approach to work, a sticky brain (good memory), thorough analysis, and meticulous attention to detail that makes the strenuous tasks of spotting anomalies a doodle. This would undoubtedly prove an asset to any cybersecurity department or company.

But all of this would be from a defensive angle only, which — in my opinion — is a little reductive of the offensive angle to their “superpower” — the true depth of high-functioning innovation that neurodiverse talents possess. Some of the best cybersecurity researchers, exploit developers, pen testers, and red teamers I met in my career were differently-abled.

In the cybersecurity world, these are absolutely the people we want on our side.

Marie Schaer, head of the Autism Outpatient Clinic in Geneva, Switzerland, reinforces this in her observation: “A lot of individuals on the spectrum tend to outperform in domains that are strongly rule-based, such as mathematics or engineering.” She further states: “That might explain why we find more people on the spectrum in tech-related jobs: they’re simply good at it.”

Having neurodiversity on your team offers a fresh perspective, as their minds work differently to those of neurotypical employees. They’re wired differently. They will push the bar on established procedures, and keep their eyes peeled for opportunities or irregular patterns. They will find “needles in haystacks”. Most importantly, they will refuse to take things at surface value — a hallmark of some of the world’s finest innovators.

Neurodiverse employees often have no difficulties side-stepping their emotional bias to determine the root cause of problems. In cybersecurity, they’re more mentally equipped to peek beyond the veneer of OK-ed systems to optimize for tighter security and even greater possibilities.

Ultimately, neurodiversity is companies’ sure-fire ticket to bringing a fresh perspective to recognize and create value.

Companies are now moving away from the notion that hiring neurodiverse talent is some sort of “charity”. They’re finding that neurodiversity should form a crucial part of their talent acquisition strategy, as it benefits both parties — the clients, who are beneficiaries of their genius neurodiverse employees, and the companies themselves. In a smart move, IBM and SAP have started making wholesale changes to their hiring process in order to accommodate neurodiverse talent.

What’s with the “window-dressing”?

If it’s worth doing at all, then it’s worth doing well. When the only evidence you have to show for your neurodiversity effort is a few diversity webinars here, a handful of diversity training there, and a few inclusivity stats, then chances are you’re probably just window-dressing.

Window-dressing doesn’t only include tokenism — simply making symbolic, “tick-box” efforts to include neurodiverse individuals, or an exercise that involves bringing in a few neurodiverse faces so that you can plant your brand in the Cool Kids Club. Window-dressing also manifests itself in good-intentions-poor-outcome initiatives (such as throwing oodles of diversity training, certifications, or diversity quota targets at the problem and calling it a day). The latter version of window-dressing is more prevalent.

Implementing a working neurodiversity policy model starts with rejigging the recruitment process. An overhaul of company workplace culture to engineer a more inclusive environment should be a priority in the workplace. And with steep long-term gains on the horizon, the juice is definitely worth the squeeze. Microsoft gets this, and they’ve successfully leveraged high-functioning autistic talent to foster more creativity for solving technical niggles within their ranks.

It is also worth noting that ultimately, the responsibility to oversee the implementation of neurodiversity lies at the feet of senior management. A study carried out by Forbes Insights on Global Diversity and Inclusion sampled the opinion of ten companies — seven of which claimed that the buck stops at the C-level and their board.

When it comes to the strategy and implementation of a diversity program, responsibility for the success of the company’s diversity/inclusion efforts lies with senior management, with 35% ultimately tasking the CEO with the role of championing true diversity and closely monitoring the success — or otherwise, progress — of their impact-measurement initiatives.

Anything short of the afore-stated amounts to window-dressing. If you belong to the category of companies that will not just talk the “diversity” talk, but also scream it from the rooftops till it wears out your staff (PwC CEO Dennis Nally, in his 2013 opinion piece, calls this “diversity fatigue” — a state in which employees are inundated with diversity talks), then a follow-through plan should be put in place to implement and track your progress.

A failure to follow-through with your neurodiversity ambitions spells either (or all) sour outcomes:

1. Failure to follow-through with your neurodiversity ambitions means you’re not bridging the gap between policy and practice. And like any well-intentioned project without any means to track progress and steer itself from veering off course, it wobbles.
2. A lack of follow-through on your diversity initiative means little to no insight. Little insight translates to lagging innovation, and thus, it’s only foreseeable that sentencing your employees to death by a thousand diversity pieces of training without having a transparent, trackable way of monitoring this policy will only leave them damning the consequences (if any) of non-compliance. To put it simply, they will have little to no regard for your attempts to change the corporate culture.
3. Organizational efforts which are perceived as disingenuous lead to potentially negative effects, including lower job satisfaction, increased distrust in leadership, and reduced performance by all employees — not just neurodivergent ones.

In short, a window-dressing approach not only fails to capture the benefits of a neurodiverse workforce, it could also negatively impact even the existing neuro-homogenous workforce.

Weaving neurodiversity into corporate consciousness

In a previous piece, I addressed the harms of deeply ingrained subconscious bias and gave a few recommendations on how we can spot and best address it using a systemic approach. Neurodiversity, being a nuance of diversity as it deals with cognitive variations in individuals, equally demands a more nuanced strategy.

A report by CREST about neurodiversity in the Tech Security workplace hints that challenging lazy thinking patterns at work is a good place to start. And when you think of it, it is. Ditching stereotypes and exercising restraint to outrightly dismiss ideas without giving them true thought only makes teams one-dimensional in their thinking and less creative. Such a dismissal also breeds an air of toxicity, which is not an optimal condition in which for employees to thrive.

Neurodiversity objectives require switching up a gear, which means taking positive action to reflect this mind shift — that is, from the false notion of accommodating people with “conditions” to acknowledging that neurodiversity is nothing but variations in cognitive processing that exist among individuals.

As noted earlier, though, the buck of this change stops at the feet of managers and team leads. In the end, it is up to them to tweak the workplace and the bulk of its processes and systems to become blind to unconscious bias. The “culture fit”-focused hiring process is a perfect case-in-point of one such workplace system — it gives hiring officers ample medium to express their subconscious biases.

The hiring process needs to undergo an expansion to accommodate neurodiverse nuances. The operational communication style should do away with non-verbal communication such as eye contact. You want to ease their nerves with a less crowded atmosphere, as well as a more relaxed line of questioning. And that’s only if you insist on continuing the old way of recruitment through evaluating CVs and interviewing. Ask yourself: are you trying to get people in who are successful at writing CVs and interviewing, or are you trying to get people in who have the best talent?

“Rigid academic and social expectations could wind up stifling a mind that, while it might struggle to conjugate a verb, could one day take us to distant stars.” – Dr. Temple Grandin

Maybe CVs are not the best way to assess talent. Consider the fact that ~78% of job applicants lie — something which might come hard to some neurodivergent people who are often unwilling to follow established, but illogical, practices simply because “everyone else is doing it.” This might serve to disadvantage the neurodiverse talent right from the immediate outset of the selection process.

It is prevalent for neurodiverse talents to find it difficult to navigate social settings or apply social skills. With this in mind, concepts like verbal communication should instead give way to actual job trials. Microsoft opted to forgo the interview process, rather inviting people to come in and work, to see how they could code. Then, hiring managers looked at the different ways in which people solved problems.

But beyond hiring, the workplace also needs to be a breath of fresh air for these neurodiverse individuals. Even those neurodiverse people who were able to find gainful employment are oftentimes spending most of their energy and motivation on blending in, masking their true selves, and absorbing all the barriers the workplace throws at them. To further drive this home, I find the opinions of these two neurodiverse individuals in the cybersecurity space quite instructive, as they know where the shoe pinches. Michael Seborowski, an incident response investigator who joined through the Autism at Work Program initiative of SAP, weighed in on the most effective way leaders can coax the best out of neurodiverse individuals in the workplace:

“Biases and stereotypes that might affect a colleague on the spectrum need to be replaced with caring, and companies need to be able to work with colleagues constructively to figure out problems.”

Megan Roddie, another professional on the autistic spectrum who is a cyber threat researcher with IBM’s X-Force Threat Intelligence team, thinks neurodiverse individuals are just as functional as neurotypicals:

“Often when management and executives hear ‘disability accommodations’, they’re thinking of physical or medical things to do,” she argues. “They’re not thinking about the fact that autistic people just think differently, and most of us neurodivergent professionals function fine.“

One thing stands out clearly from these sampled opinions: that if anything close to “true” neurodiversity in the workplace is to be achieved, managers have to act — and proactively, too.

For instance, neurodiverse individuals may not be willing to signal their status for some reason. It then behooves hiring managers or team leads to ask these questions. Once these individuals open up about it, then the manager should be trained to manage workflow patterns or create an enabling environment. These wholesale changes should be implemented not just at the hiring level, but throughout the entire employment lifecycle.

Tech giants like SAP, Microsoft, and the UK’s GCHQ intelligence and security organization have implemented these solutions, and it has proved rewarding. I see an opportunity for a similarly successful application in cybersecurity companies.

More broadly, governments could wade in with their fair share of responsibility to expand and publicize neurodiversity empowerment initiatives. Corporations also have an important place in the conversation to build a pipeline of opportunities for neurodiverse individuals.

Wrap up

There is enough anecdotal evidence (and even some empirical evidence) to suggest a link between a diverse workforce and innovation.

While the difference in our backgrounds would almost certainly mean that true diversity is an uphill struggle, the tangible gains in the undertaking — both for the neurodiverse individual and company productivity alike — are certainly worthy of contemplation. Companies stand to lose out big when neurodiversity is just another box to be ticked. To make matters worse, when companies try to raise standards and employees get the impression that they are “window-dressing” or tokenistic in their approach, this triggers a breakdown in confidence and breeds a poor working environment.

A workplace with neurodiversity becomes more inclusive to a broader range of individuals, thus enhancing company reputation and brand image. Naturally, this can only ensure a healthy, morale-boosting environment for all employees to ramp up productivity levels.

“Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans.” – Mr. Spock

Cryptosec is a leading provider of security solutions in the rapidly evolving world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, DeFi. Their specialist investigations arm, Crypto Investigators, offers expert services in blockchain forensics and legal investigations, leveraging deep industry knowledge and advanced investigative techniques to navigate the complexities of the digital age.

The post Neurodiversity: Talent or Token? appeared first on Cryptosec.

The benefits of diversity, especially in tech spaces, are well-documented. Diversity inspires curiosity in heterogeneous teams, which means more robust creative capacity. Diversity creates a level of discomfort that makes teams perform better.

Vacant cybersecurity jobs globally are projected to clinch a whopping 3.5 million in 2021. One is tempted to think that the current shortage in cybersecurity should force the hands of HR to tap into a pipeline of neurodiverse employees. After all, it is estimated that around 1 in 7 people (more than 15%) are neurodivergent. Despite all that, traditional HR recruitment practices often miss out on the neurodiversity opportunity as they fail to engage with neurodiverse candidates adequately.

“Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.” – Alan Turing

Why Embracing Neurodiversity

We, cybersecurity professionals, know better. We are increasingly finding that neurodiverse talents easily hold up to the scrutiny of performance and value — thanks to their uniquely fresh perspective and out-of-the-box thinking they bring to the table. Seemingly opposite angles to problem-solving deliver strong results when dealing with complex cybersecurity issues.

Neurodivergent individuals may possess strengths that are particularly well-suited to the cybersecurity field. For example, individuals with autism may have a natural affinity for technology and an ability to focus intensely on specific tasks. At the same time, those with ADHD might excel at multitasking and adapting to rapidly changing situations. By incorporating neurodiverse perspectives into cybersecurity teams, organizations can tap into these strengths and foster a more robust and resilient approach to tackling cyber threats.

Other cognitive abilities that are highly valuable in the cybersecurity field may include exceptional pattern recognition, attention to detail, logical thinking, and problem-solving skills. By embracing neurodiversity, the cybersecurity industry can tap into these unique strengths, resulting in more effective threat detection, mitigation, and prevention strategies.

Neurodiverse employees often have no difficulties side-stepping their emotional bias to determine the root cause of problems. In cybersecurity, they’re more mentally equipped to peek beyond the veneer of OK-ed systems to optimize for tighter security and even greater possibilities.

The cybersecurity landscape is in a constant state of flux, with new threats and vulnerabilities emerging daily. Neurodivergent individuals are known for their ability to think outside the box and approach problems from unconventional perspectives. This innovative thinking can lead to the development of creative solutions that address emerging cybersecurity challenges. From new automation solutions in security operations to out-of-the-box approaches to testing cybersecurity, neurodiversity hires often excel in them.

Embracing neurodiversity in the cybersecurity industry offers significant benefits, including access to a diverse range of skills and perspectives that can help fuel innovation, address skills gaps, and strengthen overall cybersecurity capabilities. The time has come for the cybersecurity industry to fully harness the power of neurodiversity and drive forward a more secure and inclusive digital landscape.

Cryptosec is a leading provider of security solutions in the rapidly evolving world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, DeFi. Their specialist investigations arm, Crypto Investigators, offers expert services in blockchain forensics and legal investigations, leveraging deep industry knowledge and advanced investigative techniques to navigate the complexities of the digital age.

The post Neurodiversity in Cybersecurity appeared first on Cryptosec.

“Organizational bullshit” is a term coined to describe deceptive, vague, or otherwise misleading communication within an organization.  “Organizational bullshit” is not an expletive. It is a legitimate academic term and the subject of serious and growing academic research on leadership. In his 1986 essay, “On Bullshit,” which later developed into a book by the same name, Princeton philosopher, Harry G. Frankfurt, was the first to look at the phenomenon through a more analytical lens, making it something that can be identified and, therefore, addressed.

Frankfurt proposed that bullshit is different from lying. Unlike a liar that intentionally subverts the truth, a bullshitter doesn’t care about the truth as long as they can further their own interests. Bullshitting is mostly a mix of exaggeration, inflation, misinformation, misdirection, and invention. It manifests itself, for example, as: exaggerated performance claims; vague jargon or buzzwords; misleading communication about company policies or strategies; promotion of superficial, feel-good initiatives with no real substance; and so on.

According to André Spicer, who wrote the book on business bullshit:

“Bullshitters do not lie. They don’t try to cover up the gap between what they are saying and how things really are. Bullshitters are indifferent to how things really are. They don’t care about whether their claims conflict with reality. All they care about is whether people will listen.”

As a result of this vagueness of bullshit, we usually don’t deal with it. We ignore it or tolerate it, often with a mixture of frustration and resignation. By not challenging it, we are now dealing with a pandemic of organizational bullshit. It has become an all-too-common phenomenon in today’s corporate world.

The Problem With Organizational Bullshit

The problem is, organizational bullshit creates a culture of dishonesty and manipulation, ultimately eroding trust and undermining organizational effectiveness.

When employees are consistently exposed to organizational bullshit, they may become skeptical of the information they receive, leading to a breakdown in trust between employees and management. This loss of trust can negatively impact employee morale, productivity, and loyalty to the organization.

Organizational bullshit can suppress critical thinking and dissent by creating an environment where employees feel compelled to conform to the company’s narrative, even if they disagree with it or find it misleading. This can lead to groupthink, where employees prioritize consensus over critical analysis, resulting in suboptimal decision-making and stifled innovation.

When employees perceive that their organization is engaging in bullshit, they may become disillusioned and disengaged. This disengagement can result in reduced productivity, higher turnover, and lower overall job satisfaction, all of which can be costly and detrimental to a company’s success.

Organizations that engage in bullshit risk damaging their reputation and brand. In today’s interconnected world, such practices can quickly become public knowledge, leading to a loss of credibility among customers, partners, and potential hires.

Getting Rid of Organizational Bullshit

Some of the key approaches to reducing organizational bullshit include:

Cultivate a culture of transparency and honesty where employees feel comfortable questioning the status quo and expressing their concerns without fear of reprisal. This includes fostering open communication channels, encouraging critical thinking, and promoting a genuine commitment to ethical behaviour.

Eliminate jargon and buzzwords to reduce the likelihood of creating an environment where bullshit thrives. Companies should emphasize clear, concise, and accurate communication that is easily understood by all employees.

Hold leaders accountable for setting the tone for their company’s culture. Employees should be encouraged to hold their leaders accountable for their actions and decisions, ensuring that they model honesty, transparency, and ethical behaviour.

Provide training and support to help employees recognize and address organizational bullshit. This might include workshops on critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and effective communication, as well as access to resources and tools that promote a culture of honesty and transparency.

Monitor and address organizational bullshit for signs of bullshit, and take corrective action as needed. This may involve revising company policies, reevaluating performance metrics, or implementing new communication strategies that prioritize clarity and accuracy.

Conclusion

Organizational bullshit is a pervasive and insidious problem that can have far-reaching negative consequences for both companies and their employees. By recognizing and addressing the issue, organizations can foster a culture of honesty, transparency, and critical thinking that not only benefits their employees but also contributes to their long-term success and competitiveness. It’s time for organizations to cut through the bullshit and commit to genuine, honest communication that fosters trust, engagement, and innovation.

Cryptosec is a leading provider of security solutions in the rapidly evolving world of blockchain, cryptocurrency, DeFi. Their specialist investigations arm, Crypto Investigators, offers expert services in blockchain forensics and legal investigations, leveraging deep industry knowledge and advanced investigative techniques to navigate the complexities of the digital age.

The post Organizational Bullshit: The Hidden Corporate Menace appeared first on Cryptosec.