People who use sophisticated buzzwords to sound smart are actually the stupidest — and also the happiest at work

The next time you open your mouth at an office meeting to spill complicated terms, believing that it makes you sound smart, consider backing out. A study has shown that the people who use the most jargon are not as intelligent as they want you to believe. Published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, it states that this is actually a sign of low intelligence. Researchers noted that these people score lower on tests of analytical thinking and problem-solving. When they use such language, they do so to "create inflated perceptions of [their] knowledge, skills, status, accomplishments, ideas, or agenda", the study stated. They even listed some of this jargon - 'active stakeholder engagement' (going to talk to customers) and "leverage" something (going to use it).

Also Read: 'Over-staffed' HR pays no heed to employee interest, causing more harm, report finds

Corporate Bull**** used for jargon-filled official communication

Researchers asked participants, who numbered over 1,000, to rate different text passages and were ranked on the Corporate Bull**** Receptivity Scale. "Corporate bull****" is a term several academics use to describe a style of communication filled with buzzwords that complicate simple ideas. The top scorers were less likely to show signs of strong analytical thinking and were also susceptible to making bad business decisions. They were also given workplace scenarios and asked how they would respond. One of them was about a new payment system at a restaurant, which the IT department ultimately scrapped after workers spent weeks training on it. They are angry because it turned out to be a waste of time, and participants were asked how they would handle the situation.

Also Read: Landmark UK ruling: People with anxiety disorder can sue employer for being denied work from home

They loved their jobs and reported being happy at work

The option with the highest score attached was - speaking to the IT, whether it is a good idea to return to the old system, considering alternatives, speaking to the staff and addressing their concerns. However, those who had leaned towards corporate jargon chose the lower-scoring option - going home and trying to fix the technical problems themselves. Such people were also found to be the ones who had more liking for their jobs, rated their bosses highly and were stirred by company mission statements and also reported being happy at work.

Shane Littrell, a cognitive psychologist at Cornell University, created the scale and said, "employees who are more likely to fall for corporate bull**** may help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it."