Corporate Speak Is Killing Team Performance

The Hidden Cost of 'Corporate Speak' in Teams: What the research shows and how to beat it.

Clear communication beats corporate speak every time, but in many workplaces, “corporate speak” has become a form of default language in meetings, emails, and projects.

Teams are encouraged to “circle back,” “drill down,” “align stakeholders”and “leverage synergies.” It may sound more professional to some, but emerging research suggests that it may actually be doing far more harm than good.

I’ve often used the time before a team development session to gauge how open and free a team is from ‘corporate speak’, or whether they sound more like they’re crafting a LinkedIn post.

In my experience, teams that communicate as if they’re talking to mates at a BBQ tend to have far fewer issues with their working relationships and team dynamics than those relying on more corporate sounding language.  They observe an unfolding situation, orient to it and then make better decisions and act faster with less ‘fluffy’ language.

Formal academic studies back up these observations.

A recent study from Cornell University (“Bullshit receptivity and its relationship to cognitive ability and decision-making.”) found that using jargon-heavy, “corporate speak” and manufactured language actually makes many perform worse on analytical thinking and decision-making tasks.

Researchers describe this language as “semantically empty and often confusing”. They found that those who rated it highly scored lower on problem-solving and reasoning ability. 

Key Findings of the Cornell Study:

The research focuses on the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a tool developed to measure how people respond to vague, impressive-sounding business jargon. 

Relationship to Cognitive Ability: The study found that individuals who are more receptive to "corporate bullshit" (rating meaningless corporate speak phrases as insightful) tend to score lower on tests measuring analytic thinking, cognitive reflection, and fluid intelligence.

Decision-Making: Those who scored high on the receptivity scale also performed significantly worse on tests designed to measure effective workplace decision-making.

Transmission: The research indicates a "cycle of BS" where those most susceptible to it are also the most likely to spread it within an organisation. 

We definitely see this play out in the performance, measured scores and outcomes from our business games and simulations.

Jargon also creates friction in teams. Research from the University of Florida shows that excessive workplace jargon reduces people’s ability to process information, lowers confidence, and makes individuals less likely to contribute ideas or ask questions. This has a direct impact on collaboration, psychological safety, and ultimately decision speed. People needing to overthink how their choice of words may sound to others in a real-time problem solve, are often just wasting brain space and time.

There is also a cultural cost. Corporate jargon is often criticised for obscuring meaning or disguising a lack of substance, creating what can feel like a performative or contrived culture rather than a genuine one. When teams prioritise sounding impressive over being clear, they risk valuing appearance over outcomes.

Strong teams operate differently. They favour plain, direct communication. They say what they mean. They make ideas accessible to everyone in the room. 

Googles' now famous ‘Project Aristotle’ found that psychological safety and clear, accessible communication are critical to high-performing teams.

Clarity builds trust and better collaboration. It enables faster decisions. It encourages contribution.

A McKinsey study showed that improved communication and collaboration can raise productivity by 20–25%, reinforcing the value of clarity.

A simple example. Why say “stakeholders” when you could just say who you actually mean? Stakeholders is often just a lazy substitute for naming the people you’re actually talking about. If you can’t name who you mean, do you really understand the problem? Stakeholders” sounds impressive, right up until someone asks, “Which ones?” The word “stakeholders” often says more about avoiding clarity than creating it. We all know many more examples of ‘corporate speak’.

In the end, high-performing teams don’t hide behind language, they use it to connect, align, and act with optimal speed and quality.

Because in the best teams, it’s not about how sophisticated you sound, it’s about how clearly you think and act, and how well others understand you.

Frameworks like the Belbin Team Role Model help to cut through this noise by giving teams a simple, practical language to describe what actually matters, observable behaviour.

Rather than hiding behind vague or fashionable terminology, Belbin reports focus on how people contribute, interact, and add value in real team settings.

This clarity shifts conversations from abstract concepts to tangible actions, who is generating ideas, who is driving momentum, who is ensuring follow-through. In doing so, teams replace corporate speak with meaningful dialogue, improving alignment, trust, and decision-making. It’s a reminder that when teams talk in clear, behaviour-based language, they don’t just sound better, they perform better.

Decent leaders and managers must start to lead the fight against corporate speak in the workplace. If you can say it simply, then please just say it simply.

ADDITIONAL: Do you have real ‘Working Relationships’ or just ‘Wankernomics’ at work?

Charles Firth and (The Chaser) and James Schloeffel (The Shovel) make some great, yet uncomfortably close to the bone, comedy in their ‘Wankernomics’ series of articles, books and stage shows that shines a light on corporate speak at its worst.  If you’ve not seen this clever series, Google some, as it exposes this problem in a very funny way.

I think that their humour has genuinely helped to expose corporate speak for what it really is, an affectation and a joke. If every leader and HR or L&D manager in Australia was made to read their work, it would likely encourage them to revert to normal language. Making fun of it shows it off as what it is, and may just help it to go away.

Thanks boys!

References:

Cornell University (2024). “Bullshit receptivity and its relationship to cognitive ability and decision-making.”Example paper: Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563.

University of Florida (2025). Workplace communication research on jargon and message processing.

Harvard Business Review (various authors).Examples:“The Problem with Corporate Jargon” (2016)“Why Simple Language Is Better for Communication”

Google – Project Aristotle (2012–2016).

McKinsey & Company (2012). “The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies.”

Author: Talan Miller

Managing Director, Sabre Corporate Development and Belbin Australia Official Australian Distributor of Belbin®

Over 30+ years of experience in team and leadership development with corporate, government, defence, education and NGO clients in Australia and overseas. Recognised Belbin expert.

Keynote speaker at the upcoming Australian Institute of Training and Development National Conference. CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE