The Organizational Bullshitting concept was first introduced by the philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt in his seminal essay (1986) and subsequent book On Bullshit (2005). Frankfurt’s core contribution lies in distinguishing between bullshitting and lying.
Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified.
Learn more
About Our Curation Process
Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).
Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.
Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.
Whereas a liar deliberately conceals the truth, a bullshitter is fundamentally indifferent to it, aiming instead to persuade or impress regardless of factual accuracy.
The concept later underwent an industrialization phase. André Spicer (2013) argued that bullshit became a pseudo‑science during the 1980s management-guru boom, characterized by “quasi‑hippy talk… that meant absolutely everything and absolutely nothing,” and became pervasive in corporate culture.
Beyond Frankfurt and Spicer, a growing body of literature has examined bullshitting from multiple angles. Notable contributions include Kiazad, Chen, & Restubog (2025), who provide a multidimensional analysis of workplace bullshit motives; Turpin (2023), who frames bullshitting as a strategic behavior linked to cognitive ability; and the foundational works of Frankfurt (1986) and Spicer (2017) themselves.
In this post, three influential papers are discussed. Petrocelli, J. V. (2026) introduces the metaphor of “bullfighting” to describe how managers and employees can actively identify, confront, and eliminate bullshit in decision‑making processes.
Christensen, L. T., Kärreman, D., & Rasche, A. (2019) examine why bullshit persists even when it is recognized as such. Christensen and colleagues argue that bullshit thrives in contexts of commanding (where authority demands empty compliance) and strategizing (where elaborate plans are valued more than their actual viability).
Finally, the earlier work by Spicer, A. (2013) Shooting the shit: The role of bullshit in organisations. M@n@gement, 16(5), 653–666. is discussed. The author defines organizational bullshit as speech produced with scant regard for the truth, and identifies its social functions – helping individuals fit in, avoid conflict, and navigate ambiguous power dynamics.
P.S. Technology and social media have made bullshitting a bigger problem. False or exaggerated claims now spread instantly online. They move from workplaces to society at large. Think of corporate greenwashing, inflated startup values, or viral misinformation. Bullshit is no longer just an office issue. Researchers must now study it as a core feature of social, political, and economic life.
Three essential reads on workplace bullshit – what it is, why it flourishes, and how to fight it. From experimental psychology to organisational theory, these papers offer a multidisciplinary framework to detect, reduce, and manage bullshit in decision‑making and everyday office life.
Bullfighting in the business arena (Petrocelli, 2026)
John V. Petrocelli (Wake Forest University) · Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 55, Issue 2, June 2026
Bullshit is communication delivered with indifference to truth, evidence, or established knowledge. Unlike lies (which at least acknowledge truth by trying to subvert it), bullshit bypasses critical evaluation and can be more persuasive than evidence‑based arguments under certain conditions. Petrocelli synthesises experimental findings from social psychology with organisational cases (Ford, Madoff, Wells Fargo) to offer a theoretically grounded 90‑day framework for reducing bullshit in decision‑making contexts.
Distinguishing bullshit from lies
- Liar knows the truth and deliberately contradicts it.
- Bullshitter neither knows nor cares whether statements are accurate. Indifference to reality.
- People judge bullshit less harshly than lies – it is seen as opinion or ignorance, not deliberate deception.
Four key experimental findings (with organisational implications)
- Bullshit frames eliminate the argument‑quality effect. When a speaker signals “I don’t care about the data”, audiences stop evaluating evidence and follow peripheral cues (confidence, attractiveness).
- Bullshit produces stronger and more durable persuasion than lies. The sleeper effect means discounting cues (“that was bullshit”) erode over time, while lie‑tags (“that was false”) stay anchored.
- Repeated exposure to bullshit corrupts collective epistemic capacity. Illusory truth works more strongly for bullshit because it is not definitively false – repetition makes it feel true.
- Bullshit receptivity is universal, not a sign of low intelligence. Even experts can be fooled when confident jargon replaces evidence. Domain knowledge does not reliably protect against fluency‑based belief.
Real‑world illustrations
- Ford Motor Company turnaround (Alan Mulally). Colour‑coded status reporting (green/yellow/red). First “red light” was applauded, not punished. Problem‑solving replaced blame. Ford avoided bankruptcy while competitors needed bailouts.
- Bernie Madoff’s fraud. Sophisticated investors failed basic plausibility tests because Madoff’s confident, jargon‑filled claims were repeated so often (illusory truth).
- Wells Fargo cross‑selling scandal. Formal whistle‑blower channels existed, but incentives rewarded impression management over accuracy. Employees who spoke up were retaliated against.
90‑day practical framework (selected actions)
- Weeks 1‑4 – Build psychological safety. Explicitly ask for problems. Respond with “Who can help solve this?” not “Why did this happen?”.
- Weeks 5‑8 – Separate diagnosis from decision. First half: identify concerns and questions only. Second half: decide.
- Weeks 9‑12 – Anchor decisions in evidence. Require presenters to label claims as “data”, “inference” or “assumption”. Introduce 90‑second evidence‑anchor breaks before major discussions.
- Ongoing – Audit strategic narratives. For stories repeated for years, trace original evidence. Create a “narrative registry” classifying claims as established, asserted, or outdated.
Bullshit and organisation studies (Christensen, Kärreman & Rasche, 2019)
Lars Thøger Christensen, Dan Kärreman, Andreas Rasche · Organization Studies
Bullshit is a ubiquitous social phenomenon that permeates organisational life. Rather than simply condemning it as corrosive, we need to understand its social functions, performative nature, and the dynamics between bullshit messages, senders and receivers. The paper focuses on two managerial practices where bullshit is likely to play a significant role: commanding (giving direction without appearing authoritarian) and strategising (describing uncertain futures with confidence). Bullshit often persists because audiences let it pass – for reasons of politeness, fear, indifference, cynicism, or social cost.
Two managerial practices where bullshit naturally thrives
- Commanding. Modern managers cannot issue explicit orders (egalitarian norms, expert knowledge). Bullshit provides a workaround – vague, confidence‑sounding talk that gives direction without directives. Example: employee appraisals sold as “development” while actually being about performance.
- Strategising. Describing futures that do not yet exist. Managers must sound confident even under high uncertainty. Aspirational talk (“we will be the most sustainable company by 2030”) can be bullshit if it avoids evidence, but it also has self‑transformative potential if stakeholders hold the organisation accountable.
Why bullshit is allowed to pass (the receiver’s role)
- Fear: speaking up risks retaliation (Wells Fargo).
- Politeness / social lubrication: bullshit eases interaction; straight talk can be rude.
- Indifference: the topic is irrelevant to one’s own work.
- Cynicism: “it’s all bullshit anyway” – calling it out feels futile.
- Temporal distance: bullshit is called later, not in the moment.
Four receiver positions (fluid, not fixed)
- Naïve: assumes the sender means well; tries to find profundity.
- Indifferent: shrugs and moves on; not worth the energy.
- Sceptic: gives initial benefit of the doubt but eventually calls bullshit if substance is missing.
- Cynical: knows it’s bullshit but plays along – calling it publicly would cost too much.
Examples from the paper
- Copenhagen Business School slogan: “CBS – where University means Business” – unclarifiable, juxtaposes incommensurable concepts. Faculty reaction: knowing smile, then change of subject (cynical mode).
- NASA Challenger disaster: internal talk about “acceptable risk” and “can‑do attitude” normalised danger – bullshit that was not called because it was taken‑for‑granted.
Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit in organisations (Spicer, 2013)
André Spicer · M@n@gement
A great deal of organisational talk and text is bullshit – discourse produced with scant regard for truth and used to willfully mislead in pursuit of the bullshitter’s interests. Bullshit is particularly prevalent in immaterial roles that lack a clear sense of social purpose. It is crafted using strategic ambiguity, over‑packed language, and fleeting concepts. The management fashion industry (consultants, gurus) provides endless raw material. Bullshit can have positive effects (image, self‑confidence, legitimacy) but also dark consequences: core tasks are crowded out, occupational identities are violated, and stakeholder trust erodes, leaving organisations brittle.
What bullshit is (Frankfurt, extended to organisations)
- Two characteristics: (1) articulated without concern for truth; (2) willfully produced to pursue the bullshitter’s purposes.
- Not lying: lies care about truth (by hiding it). Bullshit is free‑ranging indifference.
- Examples: management buzzwords (“value”, “quality”, “synergy”), earnings reports cooked to please multiple audiences, New Public Management language in universities.
Why bullshit flourishes
- Structural drivers: post‑industrial economies create many jobs with unclear social value. Faced with meaninglessness, employees fill the void with bullshit.
- Coping strategies: “empty labour” (surfing the web) versus bullshit production (endless emails, motivational seminars, pointless reports).
- The management‑fashion industry supplies a continuous stream of new concepts, making bullshitting easy and seemingly up‑to‑date.
The ambivalent outcomes of bullshit
- Positive: builds image (consultants impressing clients), boosts self‑confidence (middle managers convincing themselves they matter), builds organisational legitimacy (adopting fashionable practices to please stakeholders).
- Negative: Crowds out core business – organisations forget what they actually do. Violates occupational identities – professionals feel their hard‑won expertise is insulted. Erodes stakeholder trust – relationships become transactional and brittle. Small environmental shocks can break the organisation.
Implications for research and practice
- Do not try to eliminate all bullshit – small amounts can be useful (creative exploration, brainstorming).
- Develop capacity to process and protect against excessive bullshit: slower decision‑making, basic truth tests, evidence‑based vetting of ideas.
- Be vigilant: the option to bullshit is often the default because image matters so much, but it leads to brittle organisations.
Synthesis: common ground, differences, and future research
- Bullshit is a cognitive lever – shifts people into peripheral processing, bypasses evidence, creates durable false beliefs.
- Structural countermeasures (meeting design, evidence anchors, narrative audits) are needed – not just psychological safety.
- Provides a detailed 90‑day framework with testable protocols.
- Bullshit is a social performance – allowed to pass because of context, power, and audience roles.
- Not all ambiguous talk is bullshit; strategic ambiguity serves legitimate functions in vision‑setting and coalition‑building.
- Focuses on the receiver’s complicity.
- Bullshit is a structural feature of post‑industrial capitalism – fills the void of meaningless jobs, fuelled by management fashion.
- Double edge: can boost legitimacy but also makes organisations brittle and distracts from core business.
- Encourages research on how discourse can destroy organisational reality, not just constitute it.
Shared warnings
- Bullshit is not harmless. It degrades decision quality, erodes trust, and makes organisations less resilient.
- Indifference to evidence is more dangerous than lying in the long run because bullshit is harder to correct and can become institutionalised.
- Senior leadership behaviour is critical – one defensive reaction to honesty can set back months of trust‑building.
When bullshit is legitimate (boundary conditions)
- Aspirational talk – visionary statements that are not yet true but motivate stakeholders (“we will be carbon neutral by 2040”).
- Strategic ambiguity – when goals are contested or creativity is needed, vague language helps diverse groups cooperate.
- Bull sessions – informal spaces where people explore ideas without commitment, like creative brainstorming.
- The problem is not ambiguity per se – it is ambiguity that substitutes for evidence in operational decisions where factual accuracy is essential.
Research agenda (from Petrocelli)
- Field studies testing whether bullshit mechanisms operate in real organisations with experienced professionals, high stakes, and complex politics.
- Boundary conditions: power distance, incentive structures, regulatory constraints – how do they moderate intervention effectiveness?
- Outcome variables beyond self‑report: decision process quality (ratio of evidence‑labelled claims to bare assertions), speed of problem detection, resource allocation accuracy, decision revision rates.
- Implementation fidelity – assess whether organisations actually execute prescribed protocols rather than nominal approximations.
Practical framework for decision‑makers (derived from all three)
- Start with psychological safety. Model vulnerability. Thank people who raise problems. Never punish the messenger.
- Interrupt peripheral processing. Separate discussion from decision. Use 90‑second evidence breaks before major discussions.
- Audit strategic narratives. If no one can trace the original evidence, classify as “asserted” not “established”. Update or retire outdated stories.
- Reward accuracy, not confidence. Publicly praise those who say “I was wrong” or flag problems early.
- Use the three‑tier claim test. Before major decisions, require presenters to label each claim as data, inference, or assumption.
- Apply four quick filters: plausibility, clarification, evidence, humility. Can this be replicated? Explain in plain language? What data support it? Does the speaker acknowledge uncertainty?
Full references
Petrocelli, J. V. (2026). Bullfighting in the business arena: Evidence‑based strategies for detecting and disposing of organizational bullshit. Organizational Dynamics, 55(2), 101231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2026.101231
Christensen, L. T., Kärreman, D., & Rasche, A. (2019). Bullshit and organization studies. Organization Studies.
Spicer, A. (2013). Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit in organisations. M@n@gement, 16(5), 653‑666.
Key background works: Frankfurt, H. (2005). On Bullshit. · Graeber, D. (2013). On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs. · Edmondson, A. (1999) on psychological safety. · Pennycook et al. (2015) on pseudo‑profound bullshit.
This summary is for educational and commentary purposes. All quotations are properly attributed to the original authors.
