Professional Bullshit

How often do we nod in recognition at professional explanations that sound impressive – without fully understanding what they actually mean, or whether they are even accurate?

When expertise becomes a facade

In professional settings, we expect language, analyses, and decision-making foundations to be rooted in knowledge, data, and verifiability. Yet, many leaders and employees encounter an increasingly polished but hollow language: strategies that promise "holistic transformation," reports that are "evidence-based" without citing evidence, and reforms described in grand terms – but with unclear goals and effects. This phenomenon is referred to by experts as professional bullshit. The term is used analytically to describe communication that gives the impression of seriousness and expertise, without being committed to truth or verifiability. It is not necessarily about lying, but about indifference toward whether the claims are actually true, precise, or meaningful.

What is actually meant by "bullshit"?

The philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt defines in the book On Bullshit bullshit as statements where the speaker is indifferent to the truth. While the liar must know the truth in order to hide it, the bullshitter is primarily concerned with the effect on the audience: to persuade, impress, or legitimize. The point is not that everything said is wrong, but that the sender does not care whether it is correct, precise, or testable. Consequently, the very norm that professional statements should be assessable as true or false gradually erodes. Over time, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between solid knowledge and linguistic window dressing.

What does professional bullshit look like in practice?

In academia, public administration, the consulting industry, and management, professional bullshit often takes the form of:

Empty jargon: abstract formulations without clear criteria for success or failure
Pseudo-explanations: models and concepts that do not explain anything concrete
Strategic ambiguity: formulations that are difficult to disagree with precisely because they are unclear

In the Norwegian public sector, we have seen examples in major reforms and initiatives where ambitious goal formulations ("better quality," "more holistic services," "increased user participation") were rarely followed by clear mechanisms for how these goals would be achieved or measured. Evaluations of, among other things, the NAV reform and several digitalization projects have pointed to the gap between polished management language and actual implementation capacity. Organizational research describes this as a kind of “performance theatre”: organizations are rewarded for producing plans, strategies, and reports – not necessarily for learning or creating real improvements.

Why do we let ourselves be fooled?

Psychological research on so-called bullshit receptivity shows that people often rate linguistically elegant, emotionally charged statements as deeper and truer than they actually are. Studies by Gordon Pennycook and colleagues show, among other things, that:

People with higher analytical reflection are less susceptible to pseudo-profound statements
High receptivity to bullshit is linked to greater vulnerability to conspiracy theories and misinformation

In organizations, this is reinforced by authority ("those who created this surely know what they are doing"), social risk ("I don't want to look stupid"), and reward systems that prize polished language over precision.

Why is professional bullshit a leadership problem?

Professional bullshit isn't just annoying – it's harmful. When decisions are made based on vague or unverifiable claims, the quality of governance and prioritization suffers. The consequences can include:

Initiatives that look good on paper but don't work in practice
Waste of resources and "activity theater"
Eroded trust in professional expertise, both internally and in the public eye

Over time, this makes organizations more vulnerable to misinformation, poor decision-making, and symbolic politics.

What can leaders do to counter professional bullshit?

A useful distinction is between bullshit production and bullshit receptivity. Both can be reduced through conscious leadership and culture building.

Concrete steps:

Ask clarifying questions:
- What does this mean in concrete terms?
- How do we know this is true?
- What would argue against this claim?
Demand verifiability: data, experience, or clear theory
Reward clarity over complexity in language and reporting
Create psychological safety for asking "stupid" questions

If something cannot be explained simply, tested against reality, or linked to responsibility and consequences, it is often a warning sign.

Reflection questions for leaders

What terms do we use frequently – and do we agree on what they actually mean?
When was the last time we stopped an initiative because the justification was too unclear?
Do we reward good language, or good results?
Is it safe here to say: "I don't understand this – can you explain?"