Abstract
The present research addresses the question: why do employees engage in bullshitting at work? We examined this research question over three phases of multidimensional scaling (MDS). In the first (elicitation) phase (n = 222), we uncovered 36 unique motives for workplace bullshitting. Phase 2 analyses (n = 610) yielded a two-dimensional MDS configuration of these 36 motives. Phase 3 interpretation (n = 118) produced a four-quadrant typology of motives definable by the intersection of two motivation theories: striving goals and regulatory focus. Thus, employees engage in workplace bullshitting for the purposes of getting ahead (status-promotion), getting away (status-prevention), getting along (communion-promotion), and getting around (communion-prevention). The typology meets fundamental theory-building criteria and underpins a nomological network of workplace bullshitting that advances understanding of why employees engage in bullshitting and how the use of bullshitting may affect them.
Consensus exists that bullshitting—namely, the process of purposefully communicating information with little to no regard for truth, evidence, or established bodies of knowledge
1
(Petrocelli, 2018)—is widespread and is not the same as lying (Jerrim et al., 2019; Littrell et al., 2021; Stokke & Fallis, 2017). Nowadays, there are artificial intelligence tools (e.g., https://www.snopes.com/
We focus here on workplace bullshitting, a phenomenon that we believe is important to study for two reasons. First, bullshitting is common in everyday human communication (Jerrim et al., 2019; Littrell et al., 2021; Mears, 2002; Stokke & Fallis, 2017). It is widespread among teenagers (Jerrim et al., 2019), millennials (Martin & Wilson, 2011), and politicians (Gibbons, 2024; Lilleker & Pérez-Escolar, 2023). Thirty-percent of respondents to Littrell et al.’s (2021) survey admitted to bullshitting on a daily basis. If bullshitting is so common in everyday life, then it likely abounds in workplaces too. Even so, the structured and evaluative nature of workplace interactions introduces unique pressures that may inhibit or encourage bullshitting, giving rise to influencing factors that are unique to organizational settings. As Spicer (2013, p. 664) observes, “one of the striking features of a lot of organisations is that many of their discourses…are bullshit”. Ferreira et al.’s (2022) findings support this claim, showing that much of what employees perceive as organizational bullshit centers on workplace and managerial discourse (e.g., ‘people often make assertions that they cannot support’, ‘my boss often says things that may or may not be true’). In short, workplace bullshitting is important to study because it is likely a pervasive feature of organizational life that is shaped by workplace-specific factors.
Second, workplace bullshitting is important to study because thinking and communicating without a concern for truth may be detrimental to sound judgment, reasoning, and cooperative discourse (Petrocelli, 2018). As articulated by Stokke and Fallis (2017, p. 285), “we are usually interested in telling other people true things, and in getting true information from others”. Yet, bullshitting is indifferent to this cooperative goal. In a similar way, workplace bullshitting is indifferent to basic standards of transparent and reliable communication, both of which are essential for employees’ effective functioning (aka agency) at work. When unchecked, workplace bullshitting can contribute to workplace vulnerabilities or inequities, such as less qualified individuals receiving promotions or development opportunities (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2022; Spicer, 2020). Simply put, another reason why workplace bullshitting is important to study is that it may explain inequities in key domains of organizational behavior and interaction, including performance evaluations, leadership effectiveness, and hiring and promotion decisions.
Assuming that workplace bullshitting is widespread and important to employee and organizational functioning, then a clear and systematic understanding of its antecedents is necessary. Despite numerous inquiries into how bullshitting permeates organizational life (Christensen et al., 2019; Ferreira et al., 2022; McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2020), a major obstacle impeding progress is a lack of theory and evidence addressing the question of why employees use bullshitting in the first place. As workplace bullshitting research continues to evolve, greater attention to theory building regarding its antecedents becomes a priority. Available research offers limited insight into its antecedents. For instance, Christensen et al. (2019, p. 1594) theorize how managers can use bullshit to legitimize unpleasant organizational actions (e.g., “right-sizing”), provide ‘polite’ direction as performance supervisors, or obtain buy-in for strategic goals despite themselves not fully understanding what is going on. Spicer (2020) explains how workplace bullshitting thrives in speech communities with plentiful supply and demand for bullshit (e.g., pseudo-entrepreneurs, leadership consultants), in which employees participate to “get things done” (p. 1) or enhance professional identity. Ferreira et al. (2022) evaluated their organizational bullshit perception scale in various industries and found that managers are key players in the dissemination of workplace bullshit, and that much of their bullshitting only serves to “puff up [their] reputation or to advance their point of view or argument” (p. 459).
Such insights are valuable for understanding antecedents of workplace bullshitting, and we build on these contributions by addressing their limitations. For example, while it appears that persuasion and self/identity-enhancement are important to why employees use bullshitting at work, such an inference nevertheless requires an actor-centric examination—that is, with bulshitters rather than bullshittees as empirical referents, which is not the case in the above studies. After all, we cannot fully understand the causes of behavior in the workplace without taking into account the actor’s perspective (Zhong & Robinson, 2021). In addition, these studies draw on different and sometimes conflicting definitions of bullshitting (e.g., truth-indifference, airy/vague language, excessive use of acronyms and jargon, etc.), making it difficult to extract and understand its common causes. All told, there is—at least to our knowledge—no theoretically coherent and empirically supported account of workplace bullshitting’s antecedents, which impedes understanding of this pervasive and important feature of organizational life.
We argue that the causes of workplace bullshitting can be understood by considering the role of individual motives, at the same time heeding the call of Petrocelli (2018, p. 257) for more inquiry into “the various motives that eliminate a concern for evidence and truth”. Organizational scholars routinely study individual motives to illuminate proximal antecedents of work behavior (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Kim et al., 2013; Qin et al., 2018; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Likewise, we investigate personal motives associated with workplace bullshitting based on theory and empirical evidence. From a theoretical standpoint, purposeful deception requires a motive (Levine, 2014). Put differently, people deliberately veer from truth-telling when being honest conflicts with their desired ends or goals (Cooper et al., 2023; Levine, 2014). Bullshitting is also purposeful according to Frankfurt’s (2005, p. 23) original claim that “However studiously and conscientiously the bullshitter proceeds, it remains true that he is also trying to get away with something” (emphasis added). Indeed, there is strong consensus around a motive-based explanation for bullshitting. For example, Mears (2002) recognizes how bullshitting can be employed playfully—to test the boundaries of reality, build rapport, and mitigate relationship strain—or with seriousness, to favorably manage social impressions or advance self-interests. These insights are very useful because they advance the idea that bullshitting may not always have harmful intent or stem from a desire to manage impressions or advance self-interest. Littrell et al. (2021) empirically discerned everyday persuasive and evasive bullshitting, showing how people use the former to appear more knowledgeable and impressive, and the latter to evade certain questions or interactions. Interestingly, persuasive bullshitting exhibits stronger (negative) associations with cognitive ability than does evasive bullshitting (Littrell et al., 2021), suggesting lower intelligence among those who more frequently use bullshit to impress rather than formulate evasive responses. Petrocelli (2018), Petrocelli et al.’s (2020) work with undergraduate students provides consistent evidence that people more often engage in bullshitting when they feel obligated to provide opinions, presumably to appear more knowledgeable (or at least not incompetent), aligning with Frankfurt’s (2005, p. 63) assertion that “bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about”. Although much can be learned from these studies, perspectives on motives for bullshitting outside the work context may not fully generalize to explain workplace bullshitting because they do not account for variables that are unique to organizational settings (e.g., Johns, 2006).
Why, then, do employees engage in bullshitting at work? Admittedly, some of the identified motives for everyday bullshitting (relationship maintenance, impression management, self-enhancement, evading interactions, etc.) may also explain workplace bullshitting. For instance, we might praise a manager’s idea without knowing or caring if it will succeed (to favorably alter how they see us), advise a colleague that their negative work conditions ‘will definitely improve’ (to alleviate their stress), tell a safety inspector that our worksite complies with industry standards despite not knowing them (to escape the interrogation or buy time), or share our opinions about topics we do not understand (to socialize and ‘fit in’). Still, the infancy of the workplace bullshitting literature and unique nuances of the workplace context (Johns, 2006) justify a comprehensive exploratory analysis of the individual motivations for workplace bullshitting that may be unique to organizational settings. To be clear, we do not ignore the existing literature we have reviewed. Rather, our reading of the existing literature led us to pursue an exploratory approach to identify additional motives relevant to the workplace context. We try to establish a stronger foundation for understanding antecedents of workplace bullshitting through an inductive, data-driven methodology (Gioia et al., 2013). We use our Discussion to articulate how our empirically-derived themes inform and are informed by previous literature, “not only to see whether what we are finding has precedents, but also whether we have discovered new concepts” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 21).
We begin by asking: why do employees engage in bullshitting at work? Our research question dictates that we address this question inductively and allow concepts to emerge from data (Gioia et al., 2013). Furthermore, we break new ground by using multidimensional scaling (MDS) to integrate and explain the empirically-derived motives within a typology that holds theoretical significance, thus pursuing a research approach driven by inductive ‘typology-driven’ theorizing (Snow & Ketchen, 2014). A typological approach facilitates integrative and parsimonious understanding of the diverse motives that underlie workplace bullshitting, a crucial aspect of theory-building (Snow & Ketchen, 2014). What is more, MDS serves as a powerful tool for our purpose, because it allows researchers to take a position of ‘unknowing’ when navigating the intricate landscape of understudied or amorphous phenomena (Kruskal & Wish, 1978), aligning with our inductive theoretical approach. Altogether, our research delivers important theoretical and empirical contributions by pioneering a typology of workplace bullshitting motives. Such knowledge helps to position workplace bullshitting research in the broader context of organizational behavior. The resulting typology directly contributes to the development of a mature theory of workplace bullshitting’s antecedents, illuminating both its negative and positive aspects and nomological network to guide future research.
Bullshitting
The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, n.d.) has the following verb entry for bullshit: [bullshit], v. Transitive and intransitive, to talk nonsense (to); = bull [trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing n.4]; also, to bluff one’s way through (something) by talking nonsense.
Bullshitting and Related Constructs.
In particular, characterizing bullshitting as purposeful behavior distinguishes it from spreading misinformation and talking nonsense (“colorless green ideas sleep furiously”; Chomsky, 1957), which can be unintentional (Effron & Raj, 2020; Scheufele & Krause, 2019). Our definition recognizes how bullshitting is “discourse governed by a certain state of mind” (Cohen, 2002, p. 324)—namely, an indifference to a range of informational qualities through which we can understand and represent reality (i.e., psychological or epistemic certainty [e.g., evidence, empirical knowledge, infallible beliefs, etc.]; Rose, 2021). One knowingly conceals their disregard for ‘truth, evidence, or established bodies of knowledge’ when bullshitting, whereas it is possible to speak ‘rubbish’ or ‘nonsense’ even without intention (Cohen, 2002; Pennycook et al., 2015). Our definition’s focus on the state of mind of the bullshitter, rather than subjective assessment of the utterance, also aligns with our actor-centric approach and differentiates bullshitting from pseudo-profound bullshit (e.g., “hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; Pennycook et al., 2015), whose truth-value depends on the epistemic stance of the receiver (e.g., “bullshit for you; transcendence for me”; Dalton, 2016).
Crucially, the definition we adopt also clarifies how bullshitting differs from lying and impression management. Although lying and bullshitting both reflect a process of discourse governed by ‘relationship with truth’, lying denies a known truth (e.g., “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”; Bill Clinton, 1998), whereas bullshitting means being indifferent to truth or ignoring it altogether (“two years ago today, we were experiencing the greatest economy in the history of the world”; Donald Trump, 2021). As Frankfurt (2005, p. 33) articulates, bullshit is “grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true”. In other words, one may nevertheless produce a true statement despite bullshitting 2 , whereas lying entails the willful delivery of incorrect information known to be false (Grover, 1993). As for impression management, individuals can also engage in honest self-presentation when describing their abilities or credentials (Bourdage et al., 2018), or may use bullshitting for reasons other than to manage impressions (Mears, 2002; Spicer, 2020).
Theory and Empirical Approach
Functionalist Theorizing
Our empirical approach rests on the logic of functionalist theorizing (Cantor, 1994; Snyder, 1993), which is “concerned with the reasons and purposes, the needs and goals, the plans and motives” that drive human behavior (Snyder, 1993, p. 253). Longstanding functionalist themes are evident in organizational research highlighting active and purposeful strivings of employees toward personal and social ends. For example, the functionalist theoretical approach reveals how both prosocial and selfish motives drive organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Rioux & Penner, 2001), and how both instrumental and value-based attitudes influence supervisors’ justice behavior (Qin et al., 2018). In essence, functionalist theorizing assumes that human behavior is mostly driven by goals and needs, meaning that the same work behavior can serve different functions for different people or even the same person at different times (Snyder, 1993). Citing Allport’s (1937, p. 24) classic example, “Let us imagine three individuals rated or measured as equally honest. One of them might be seeking justice, another might be trying always to help others, while the third might be trying to maintain his self-esteem or reputation”. Functionalist theorizing asks: what purpose or function does this behavior serve for the individual, shifting focus from the psychology of ‘is’ to the psychology of ‘is for’ (Snyder, 1993).
A functional analysis of workplace bullshitting thus is concerned with the motives being fulfilled through the use of bullshitting at work. A key reason why we adopted a functional perspective is because functionalist theorizing offers a parsimonious model for identifying and distinguishing the diverse motives that likely drive workplace bullshitting. This approach enables us to better understand the behavior, its underlying reasons, and develop integrative theoretical explanations for these motives. From a functionalist standpoint, workplace bullshitting instances that may appear quite similar on the surface (“this strategic change will not result in job losses”; McCarthy et al., 2020) can be driven by fundamentally different underlying motives. By acknowledging the heterogeneity in the goals that drive the same behavior, functional analysis promotes “inclusive theorizing about the motivational foundations of action” (Clary et al., 1998, p. 1517), making it particularly well-suited to our inductive, theory-building approach. Overall, functionalist theorizing provides a strong conceptual foundation for developing a theoretical model of workplace bullshitting motives.
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)
The present research integrates functionalist theorizing with multidimensional scaling (MDS)—incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods—to derive a typology of workplace bullshitting motives. MDS is an exploratory technique that is useful for uncovering the theoretical structure of amorphous data, particularly for the purpose of producing inductive, empirically derived typologies (e.g., Pinkley et al., 1995; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Since our goal is to develop a typology of workplace bullshitting motives—and no empirical research has yet explored the content of these motives—we employ an inductive approach to derive a theoretical typology grounded in empirical data. Given that MDS solutions are not predetermined but emerge inductively, this method aligns well with our functionalist theoretical approach and supports the development of a robust, data-driven framework. MDS allows researchers to inductively determine and label dimensions necessary and sufficient to “illuminate the hidden structure…that distinguish [es] one class or category of stimuli from another” (Pinkley et al., 2005), thus producing a typology. Indeed, past researchers used MDS techniques to formulate longstanding typologies, such as those describing employee deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), responses to job dissatisfaction (exit, voice, loyalty and neglect; Farrell, 1983), mentoring experiences (Simon & Eby, 2003), the structure of goals (Grouzet et al., 2005), and perceptions of individuals and groups (Cuddy et al., 2008). Unlike other data-reduction techniques (e.g., exploratory factor analysis, principal components analysis, etc.), MDS offers distinct advantages for our research objectives. While factor analysis might clearly differentiate between sets of motives, MDS promotes finer-grained understanding of how motives relate to one another based on independent judgements (Pinkley et al., 2005). Furthermore, factor analysis requires participants to rate stimuli based on researcher-defined criteria (‘attribute-based’ data), whereas MDS allows participants to make similarity judgments based on their own criteria (also known as ‘attribute-free’ data), reducing the risk of researcher-imposed bias (Pinkley et al., 2005). As Pinkley et al. (2005, p. 82) note, a typology derived from MDS is “less likely to be contaminated by the preconceptions or hypotheses of the researcher.” Altogether, MDS is particularly well-suited to the development of our data-driven typology.
The ultimate goal of MDS is to produce a geometric map that illustrates the perceived similarity or dissimilarity between pairs of objects by representing them as points in a Euclidean space (Oh & Raftery, 2001). This representation ensures that similar objects are positioned closer together, while dissimilar objects are proportionately farther apart, creating a ‘visual map’ that conveys the relationships among objects as perceived by individuals. Using MDS, we combine qualitative insights with quantitative analyses to furnish a novel typology of workplace bullshitting motives. To meet MDS requirements (Kruskal & Wish, 1978), we conducted three distinct phases of data collection and analysis. In Phase 1, we initiated motive elicitation and simplified the collected data. Phase 2 involved obtaining similarity ratings and establishing initial dimension descriptors. Finally, Phase 3 encompassed the labeling of dimensions and quadrants. Each phase was executed with different samples to ensure compliance with MDS procedures, allowing us to derive meaningful insights from the data. The subsequent sections provide an in-depth account of the method and results for each phase, shedding light on the empirical process through which we developed our typology. To reiterate, we are guided by the following research question: why do employees engage in bullshitting at work?
Methods and Results
Phase 1: Motive Elicitation and Data Simplification
Sample and Procedure
To elicit motives for workplace bullshitting, we sampled working adults (n = 345) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). All were U.S. residents with at least 100 task completions, a minimum approval rating of 97%, and passed reCAPTCHA screening. Meta-analytic evidence shows that MTurk data produce similar, if not better, psychometric properties and criterion validities compared to conventionally sourced data (Walter et al., 2019).
To ensure conceptual precision, participants first were presented with the definition of bullshitting we adopt, and informed as to how bullshitting differs from lying. Next, they were asked to describe a specific, recent incident at work where they bullshitted to a colleague, and to provide as much detail as possible about the setting, content, and target of their bullshitting. Fifteen respondents could not recall (or describe) such an incident, so their data were excluded from further analysis. Next, members of the research team independently evaluated the extent to which the remaining (n = 330) incidences referenced distinguishing qualities of bullshitting reflected in our definition. We removed incidences that were overly ambiguous (e.g., “Convince me and make to work in the office. I already know the truth but he was telling many stories to me. Finally, I said ‘okay’ because I am staying away from my family”), or outside the workplace context (e.g., “[the bullshitting was to] “Matt my local postmaster who was about 52 years old and a white married guy”), or which described being the recipient of bullshit (e.g., “They gave me a complete bullshit answer. It’s like they were not even listening to me”), or lying (e.g., “I said that I only made 50 in tips so I didn’t have to share all my tips. I actually made over 300 in tips that night”). In the end, we were left with 222 incidences of workplace bullshitting, from which we extracted underlying motives. The following are verbatim examples from participants who described an instance of bullshitting to a colleague at work: It had to do with our boss. We were talking about how hands on he tends to be. Well we were talking about how we both could probably do so much better at our jobs if he wasn’t so hands on all the damn time. I have no idea if this is true but it is kind of an excuse for slacking off too much. Something we say to shift the blame for laziness [30 years old, female, industry unspecified]. I was asked whether certain html elements on a website were ADA compliant. I did not know the answer. However, there was a room full of about 90 people. I took my best guess and said that the element was not compliant. Turns out I was wrong [40 years old, male, information media and telecommunications]. The subject of the bullshit was my work performance. I didn’t lie because what I said could be objectively true. What I said is I feel like I was the best salesman at the dealership and I am the most liked by customers and got the best ratings on satisfaction surveys. I knew this particular manager did not keep track of career sales statistics or satisfaction ratings of his workers [33 years old, male, retail trade].
Among the 222 participants, 60% (n = 133) identified as male, their average age was 36.70 years (SD = 10.58), and they had 8.58 years (SD = 7.35) of industry experience and 5.14 years (SD = 5.06) of organizational tenure. Sixty-six percent (n = 147) held a bachelor’s degree or higher. They represented the following industries: wholesale, warehousing, retail, and hospitality (21%); information technology (15%); finance and insurance (10%); healthcare (10%); education and training (9%); agriculture, mining, and manufacturing (5%); arts and recreation (5%); administrative and support services (4%); electricity, gas, and construction (4%), and others (18%). They were compensated $3 (USD) to complete surveys.
To assess motive/s, we asked participants: ‘Why did you bullshit? For example, were you trying to achieve some specific goal/s or objective/s? If so, what were these? Please be as specific as possible.’ Our open-ended, exploratory approach captured rich and textured data by treating participants as knowledgeable agents who “can explain their thoughts, intentions, and actions” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 17).
Results
Workplace Bullshitting Motives and Representative Examples.
Note. These 36 motives were extracted from 222 original statements; extracted core meaning italicized.
Phase 2: Similarity Ratings and Initial Dimension Descriptors
Sample and Procedure
MDS takes as input a ‘proximity matrix’ comprising of similarity/dissimilarity estimates (e.g., ‘How similar / dissimilar are these items?’) between pairs of stimuli. In Phase 2, we obtained proximity estimates of the 36 motives using a new sample of 610 MTurk panelists who correctly answered attention check questions (Meade & Craig, 2012) and met inclusion criteria (18+ years of age; employed full time; >100 MTurk tasks completions; >97% approval rating). To mitigate potential method effects—like pre-existing respondent attitudes or personal experiences related to workplace dynamics—we presented the motives in a neutral context. Specifically, we framed these as various motives for workplace communication, thus avoiding the introduction of potentially biasing factors.
We imposed stringent inclusion criteria to ensure data quality (Keith et al., 2017). Only data from those correctly answering both attention check questions were retained. Participants’ mean age was 38.62 years (SD = 11.48) and 60% identified as male. They had 14.78 years (SD = 11.27) of work experience and 70% held a bachelor’s degree. They were mostly Caucasian American (72%) and native English speakers (97.9%), and represented the following sectors: finance and insurance (14%); wholesale, warehousing, retail and hospitality (14%); information technology (12%); education and training (9%); healthcare (9%); agriculture, mining, and manufacturing (7%); administrative and support services (5%); arts and recreation (4%); electricity, gas, and construction (4%), and others (22%).
Proximity data for MDS were obtained by asking participants to rate the degree of similarity (1 = not at all similar, 7 = very similar) between pairs of motives identified in Phase 1. With 36 unique motives, 630 unique pairwise comparisons were possible [36 (36–1)/2]. Asking respondents to undertake 630 comparisons would be unreasonable and cognitively taxing, and likely to produce error variance or straight-line cognitive processing (Keith et al., 2017). Following others (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Simon & Eby, 2003; Thompson, 1983; Tsogo et al., 2000), we divided the 630 possible comparisons into subsets each consisting of 108 comparisons. On each page of the survey, participants were presented with three randomly selected motives (out of a possible 36) and one ‘target’ motive (out of 36), with the target motive appearing (centered, boldface) at the top. Participants rated the degree of similarity between each randomly selected motive and the target motive, repeating this task for all 36 target motives. Thus, each participant compared each of the 36 motives with three randomly selected motives, yielding 108 comparisons per participant and 65,880 (610 x 108) comparisons in total (average n = 104.57 similarity ratings per motive). They took on average 16 minutes (SD = 13 minutes) to complete the 108 comparisons, which is within the range of appropriate time for high-quality survey responses (Deutskens et al., 2004). Furthermore, no single comparisons were undertaken in less than 2 seconds, indicating sustained attention and effort throughout the survey (Huang et al., 2012).
Results
We began by calculating mean similarity ratings for each pair of motives. We then reverse-coded these similarity ratings so that higher scores reflect greater dissimilarity, and inserted these average dissimilarity ratings into a 36 x 36 dissimilarity matrix for MDS. We used the ALSCAL algorithm (Young and Lewyckyj, 1979) in SPSS 25 to obtain model fit indices—namely, the (scaled) Stress Index (SI; Kruskal, 1964) and Squared Correlation (R 2 ), which we inspected to determine the visual configuration and underlying dimensionality of the motives. The SI is a badness-of-fit index that measures the degree of misfit or discrepancy between the expected and actual distances among items in the dimensional space. It ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect fit to the data, and 1 indicates a total misfit (Kruskal & Wish, 1978). Hence, the smaller the SI, the better the fit of the model to the data. The R 2 represents the proportion of variance in the scaled data accounted for by the model-implied distance (ranging from 0.0 [no fit] to 1.0 [perfect fit])—the larger the R 2 , the better the fit.
Online Appendix Table A1 reports SIs and R
2
for six possible model configurations. As Online Appendix Table A1 shows, there is considerable improvement in SI and R
2
when moving from a unidimensional model (SI and R
2
= .52 and .31, respectively) to a two-dimensional model (SI and R
2
= .28 and .60, respectively) (ΔSI = .24 and ΔR
2
= .29). Although moving to a three-dimensional model also improves fit (ΔSI = .11, ΔR
2
= .19), the magnitude of this improvement is smaller compared to that of the two-dimensional model over the unidimensional model. Furthermore, the four-, five-, and six-dimensional solutions yielded negligible improvement in SI (ΔSI = .05, .03, and .01, respectively) and R
2
(ΔR
2
= .07, .02 and .02, respectively). In other words, the two-dimensional solution captures more meaningful variation in the data while also respecting key MDS principles of parsimony, interpretability, and ease of use (Borg & Groenen, 2005; Kruskal & Wish, 1978). Although higher-dimensional solutions capture more statistical variance, parsimony and theoretical interpretation are prioritized for MDS solutions. Altogether, we deemed a two-dimensional solution as best representative of the data. In this solution, each dimension represents a continuum along which motives vary (e.g., Dimension 1 ranges from one conceptual extreme to another). Accordingly, each motive is assigned two numerical coordinates—one for each dimension—indicating its precise location within the two-dimensional space (i.e., an x-value along Dimension 1 and a y-value along Dimension 2). These coordinates reflect how similar or dissimilar the motives are, with items judged to be very similar lying closer together on both dimensions. Online Appendix Table A2 presents the coordinates of the 36 motives producing the two-dimensional configuration, and Figure 1 shows the two-dimensional configuration. Two-dimensional model of workplace bullshitting motives.
To aid interpretation, we derived dimension descriptors that reflect potential criteria participants used when making similarity judgments (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Simon & Eby, 2003). Because MDS does not inherently assign meaning to dimensions, researchers must generate labels that meaningfully reflect the underlying patterns in the data. Rather than arbitrarily imposing a single label, we followed best practices in MDS interpretation (Kruskal & Wish, 1978) by systematically evaluating how motives clustered along each dimension. Specifically, we asked: (1) what do the motives clustering at one end of a dimension have in common, and (2) how do they collectively differ from those at the opposite end? Through this process, certain distinctions emerged quite clearly. For instance, motives at one end of Dimension 1 were strongly suggestive of formal, work-related behaviors, while those at the other end were more informal and socially-oriented—leading us to label this axis formal work versus informal work. Similarly, Dimension 2 revealed a consistent contrast between self-enhancement motives (e.g., improving status or image) and self-protection motives (e.g., avoiding blame or negative judgment).
However, recognizing that dimension labeling is inherently subjective, we sought to minimize researcher bias and to consider alternative conceptual possibilities. To this end, the research team engaged in multiple rounds of discussion and refinement, evaluating various theoretical perspectives and emergent empirical patterns. While some descriptors, like formal work versus informal work and self-enhancement versus self-protection, were relatively intuitive based on motive clustering, others required conceptual deliberation. Through this iterative process, we ultimately identified six bipolar descriptors that could plausibly represent the underlying structure of the two-dimensional solution: 1. Formal work versus informal work (meeting formal task and performance requirements vs. socializing and passing time; Dimension 1). 2. Self-oriented versus other-oriented (affecting one’s own circumstances and outcomes vs. others’ circumstances and outcomes; Dimension 1). 3. Prosocial versus antisocial (benefitting others or the organization vs. harming others or the organization; Dimension 2). 4. Self-enhancement versus self-protection (promoting a positive self or social image vs. preventing a negative self or social image; Dimension 2). 5. Gain versus loss avoidance (trying to gain something of material, psychological, or social value vs. trying to not lose something of material, psychological, or social value; Dimension 2). 6. Approach oriented versus avoidance oriented (sensitivity to, and trying to obtain positive outcomes vs. sensitivity to, and trying to avoid negative outcomes; Dimension 2).
Following others (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Simon & Eby, 2003), in Phase 3 we subjected these descriptors to empirical evaluation using a separate sample.
Phase 3: Dimension and Quadrant Labelling
Sample and Procedure
We recruited 118 MTurkers using the same attention check questions and inclusion criteria used in Phase 2. Their mean age was 37.95 years (SD = 9.60) and 62% identified as male. They had 15.45 years (SD = 10.07) of work experience. Sixty-one percent held a bachelor’s degree or higher. They were mostly Caucasian American (84%) and native English speakers (99%). They represented the following sectors: education and technical professions (15%); information technology (12%); finance and insurance (11%); administrative and support services (9%); healthcare (8%); wholesale, warehousing, retail, and hospitality (8%); agriculture, mining, and manufacturing (7%); arts and recreation (3%); electricity, gas, and construction (3%), and others (25%).
Each motive was individually scaled on the six bipolar descriptors identified in Phase 2, with descriptors anchoring the extreme ends (e.g., formal work----------informal work). Participants rated how well each descriptor represented each motive by selecting a point along the line (Simon & Eby, 2003), resulting in 216 ratings per participant (36 motives x 6 descriptors). We calculated the mean representative rating of each descriptor for each motive (e.g., Motive 1 Ms = 2.92, 6.61, 7.23, 7.28, 6.94, and 6.78, respectively; see Online Appendix Table A3). Next, we regressed these mean ratings on the coordinates of each motive using simple linear regression. This allowed us to assess how well the descriptors are explained by the dimension coordinates. Descriptors were chosen based on the multiple correlation index (R; or the corresponding coefficient of determination, R2) and beta (b) weights (Kruskal & Wish, 1978; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Simon & Eby, 2003). The results are summarized in Online Appendix Table A4.
Results
Online Appendix Table A4 shows significant R2 for five of the six descriptors. Descriptors for specific dimensions were chosen based on examination of beta (b) weights. From Online Appendix Table A4, formal work vs. informal work (b = −1.37, p < .01) and self-oriented versus other-oriented (b = −.80, p < .01) were significantly related to Dimension 1, suggesting that motives differ along this dimension by referencing the formal side of work and individual accomplishment at one end (e.g. ‘secure a job opportunity’, ‘avoid losing one’s job’) and the more informal-social side of work and interaction at the other end (e.g., ‘playfully prank someone’, ‘to put someone in their place’). These orientations resemble Barrick et al.’s (2002) status and communion striving motivation constructs and as such, we labelled Dimension 1: status versus communion.
Table A4 shows that approach oriented versus avoidance oriented (b = 1.58, p < .01), gain versus loss avoidance (b = 1.42, p < .01), and self-enhancement versus self-protection (b = 1.34, p < .01) are significantly related to Dimension 2. Thus, motives at one end of this dimension are generally concerned with obtaining positive outcomes (e.g., ‘obtain job benefits’, ‘“upsell” oneself’), while motives at its other end generally have to do with avoiding negative outcomes (e.g., ‘avoid blame’, ‘get time off work’). Dimension 2’s descriptors thus imply bullshitting for the purpose of acquiring desired end-states or avoiding undesired ones, in line with regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997). Thus, we chose the label promotion versus prevention for Dimension 2. The two dimensions combine to produce a four-quadrant typology of motives. Figure 2 exhibits the typology along with the most frequently occurring motives per quadrant. Typology of Workplace Bullshitting Motives. Note. Post-hoc counting of motives suggests that employees in our sample (Phase 1) engaged in bullshitting mostly for the purpose of getting along (n = 69), followed by getting away (n = 64), getting ahead (n = 61), and getting around (n = 28). The above exemplars are the top three occurring motives per quadrant.
Quadrant 1 (status-promotion) illustrates how bullshitting can serve employee motives towards superiority (appearing knowledgeable or competent, confident, diligent, etc.) and professional attainments (job opportunities, improved performance image). We labelled this quadrant: getting ahead. For example: I was put on the spot because I was the expert in the room. I was giving a talk and I wanted to project that I was an authority on the subject. I could have done better in retrospect by just admitting that I did not know the answer to that very specific question [To appear knowledgeable or competent]. I was trying to get this job because I had already passed a few interviews to get to that point and I wasn’t going home empty handed. I got hired [To secure a job opportunity].
Quadrant 2 (status-prevention) demonstrates how employees also engage in bullshitting to avoid negative aspects of work or negative evaluations. We labelled this quadrant: getting away. For example: I wasn’t feeling good, but my bullshit did help avoid doing the task. My manager gave me that “whatever look” and sent someone else. I successfully evaded doing something that I really didn’t feel like doing at the moment [To avoid undesirable work]. I did not want to appear less intelligent or less informed. I wanted to feel like I was up on everything especially because she was younger than myself [To avoid appearing unknowledgeable or incompetent].
Quadrant 3 (communion-promotion) depicts the ‘playful’ side of bullshitting—or how it may “provide a means by which people pass time together and…engage in a type of free-form sociation” (Mears, 2002, p. 242). We labelled this quadrant: getting along. For example: We were having a Christmas lunch and the team had been dealing with a lot of tension and dysfunction. I was trying to lighten things up. Trying to get everyone to laugh a little [To be humorous or jokey]. I was trying to relate to my boss and make him think we had some common interests. I would say bullshitting helped on some level. I think it made him think I had a least some knowledge about what he was talking about. I certainly don’t think I exposed myself as being a bullshitter [To facilitate social bonding].
Finally, Quadrant 4 (communion-prevention) recognizes how bullshitting can provide a way to circumvent interpersonal strain, evade conversations, or protect one’s peers. This quadrant is labelled: getting around. For example: I [was] just trying to explain why I’d be gone but without going into details, because I didn’t want to explain everything about my new job to my coworkers [To avoid or change a conversation]. I wanted to try to alleviate their stress and concern as they were on the verge of panicking. I believe that my help did achieve this temporarily. They still seemed concerned however not as much as before [To protect the welfare of others].
Next, we clarify the typology’s theoretical roots, how it furnishes a robust theoretical foundation for workplace bullshitting, and how it can guide future theoretical and empirical development regarding the antecedents and outcomes of workplace bullshitting.
Discussion
We adopted a functionalist perspective to unravel the underlying motives that drive bullshitting at work. Through comprehensive MDS analysis, we uncovered an array of distinct reasons why employees engage in bullshitting. These motives can be effectively interpreted along two overarching theoretical dimensions: status-communion and promotion-prevention. The amalgamation of these dimensions resulted in a four-quadrant typology, with each quadrant encapsulating a unique set of empirically derived motives, shedding light on employee intentions when engaging in bullshitting at work. The typology comprises four distinct categories: getting ahead, getting away, getting along, and getting around.
Theoretical Implications
First and foremost, our typology of motives for workplace bullshitting meets fundamental theory-building criteria (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Frankfurt (2005, p. 23) began by claiming that bullshitting necessarily entails “trying to get away with something”. From that foundation emerged mostly theoretical (Christensen et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020; Mears, 2002; Spicer, 2013, 2020) accounts of why employees engage in bullshitting at work. Besides lacking empirical evidence, this body of literature could also be characterized as fragmented. Our MDS-based typology of motives advances the field by empirically substantiating and integrating workplace bullshitting motives within a theoretical framework that explains their similarities and differences (Snow & Ketchen, 2014). Our typology establishes that employees also use bullshitting for reasons other than to manage impressions, while also identifying new motives not acknowledged in prior literature. That is, past studies overlooked how bullshitting also helps employees avoid work or dodge accountability, motives represented in the current typology as getting away. By integrating striving goals and regulatory focus theories, our typology furnishes a fuller, empirically-supported account of the varied motives for bullshitting in the workplace.
Our finding that motives are interpretable along complementary theoretical dimensions represents another contribution. From functionalist theorizing, we sought to determine the broad motives underpinning workplace bullshitting. We then produced a typology defining their theoretical structure and domain space. We ended up going much deeper than functional analysis by elucidating specific motives for bullshitting through an integration of striving goals (Barrick et al., 2002) and regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) theories.
Our finding that workplace bullshitting serves employee goals vis-à-vis advancement opportunities, productivity and performance, and professional status (appearing more [or not less] knowledgeable and competent), suggests a status striving dimension to its underlying motives. Barrick et al. (2002) conceived status striving broadly as one’s motivation towards superior standing (power and social influence) within a status hierarchy—or as getting ahead of others. In other words, workplace bullshitting can service employee motives of attaining higher status or exerting status-enhancing influence (e.g., dominance, prominence, prestige; Cheng et al., 2010; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). This supports prior theoretical assertions concerning everyday bullshitting, such that bullshitting can help people represent “as more competent at some activity than perhaps they “really” are” (Mears, 2002, p. 244). Conversely, that employees also use bullshit to not appear incompetent may explain why they use it more when they believe their claims will be evaluated by knowledgeable audiences (Petrocelli, 2018; Petrocelli et al., 2020). Our evidence extends these viewpoints to the workplace setting.
Our observation that workplace bullshitting fulfils relational motives towards harmony, inclusion, and belongingness, suggests a communion striving dimension to workplace bullshitting, or in the words of Barrick et al. (2002, p. 44), as energy directed towards “obtaining acceptance in personal relationships and getting along with others”. Our evidence suggests that employees engage in bullshitting to serve these communion goals via playful teasing, passing time together, ‘having each other’s back’, or thwarting interpersonal strain, thus contradicting overarching bullshit-as-bad or impression management narratives (Christensen et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2013). As our findings show, bullshitting may not always have harmful intent or stem from a desire to advance self-interest (e.g., Christensen et al., 2019; Mears, 2002). Altogether, our typology’s status-communion dimension pioneers theoretical understanding and empirical evidence for agentic and cooperative motives for workplace bullshitting.
Our typology further enriches theoretical understanding by elucidating workplace bullshitting through a regulatory focus framework (Higgins, 1997). Regulatory focus theory delineates two coexisting systems describing how people self-regulate during goal pursuit: promotion and prevention. Promotion-focused goal pursuit is concerned with growth and development, thus moving people closer towards their hopes, aspirations, and wishes (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Lanaj et al., 2012). Self-regulation via prevention focus is concerned with security and safety, thus moving people away from possible failure and punishment, or undesired end-states (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Lanaj et al., 2012). Thus, promotion-focus orients people towards gain or procuring positive outcomes, whereas prevention focus orients people away from loss or negative outcomes.
According to our typology, bullshitting serves both promotion- and prevention-focused motives. As for promotion focus, some motives implied efforts to acquire resources (‘secure a job opportunity’, ‘improve one’s performance image’) or reach desired end-states of personal and relationship improvement (‘motivate oneself’, ‘facilitate social bonding’). Other motives clustered around attempts to prevent negative outcomes (‘avoid getting into trouble’, ‘avoid conflict’) or withdraw from work or colleagues (‘get time off work’, ‘avoid undesirable work’, ‘avoid or change a conversation’). This pattern coincides with meta-analytic evidence that promotion focus relates positively with task performance and interpersonal citizenship, whereas prevention focus relates positively with counterproductive work behavior (Lanaj et al., 2012). Altogether, our typology reveals regulatory focus as another theoretical explanation for why people engage in bullshitting at work—namely, to approach desired or avoid undesired end states.
By bringing together striving goals and regulatory focus theories, our typology furnishes an integrative and empirically-supported theoretical explanation for motives that underpin workplace bullshitting. In particular, our typology clarifies how bullshitting regarding status and communion has promotion and prevention components as well. From the unique domain space produced by these intersecting dimensions, we tentatively labelled the quadrants getting ahead (status-promotion), getting away (status-prevention), getting along (communion-promotion), and getting around (communion-prevention).
A Nomological Network of Workplace Bullshitting
A major goal of the present research was to derive a typology of workplace bullshitting motives. Going further, our typology can also guide future research by illuminating workplace bullshitting’s antecedents and consequences. Integrating theory and empirical evidence, Figure 3 incorporates aspects of the organization, job, and individual that should influence workplace bullshitting motives. These motives, in turn, should influence employee outcomes indirectly via workplace bullshitting behavior. Altogether, the emergent theoretical model of workplace bullshitting incorporates the typology of motives to advance understanding of why employees use bullshit, and how the use of bullshitting may affect them. Nomological network of workplace bullshitting.
Antecedents
According to Petrocelli (2018) and Petrocelli et al.’s (2020) obligation to provide an opinion and ease of passing bullshit hypotheses, people more readily engage in bullshitting when (a) there is more opportunity for bullshitting, and (b) they anticipate that it will not be detected. Integrating these insights with our typology of motives, Figure 3 incorporates antecedents at the level of the organization, job, and individual that are likely to influence opportunities and ease of bullshitting, and thus employees’ motivation to engage in workplace bullshitting.
Organization-Level Antecedents
Workplace Bullshitting Climate
Organizational climates capture “the shared perceptions of and the meaning attached to the policies, practices, and procedures employees experience and the behaviors they observe getting rewarded and that are supported and expected” (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 362). Likewise, a workplace bullshitting climate represents the shared perceptions employees hold about the extent to which the organization accepts and encourages the circulation of communication that holds little to no connection with truth, evidence, or established bodies of knowledge (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2022). Ferreira et al. (2022, p. 459) concluded based on empirical evidence that “employees are attuned to the presence of bullshit in organizations, and their attitudes, beliefs, and actions are likely to be influenced by their perceptions of it”. Social information processing theory (SIP; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) asserts that individuals align their attitudes and behaviors with those of others and norms within their social environment. As such, employees in high-bullshitting climate organizations—where bullshitting is tolerated or embraced—should be more motivated to engage in bullshitting due to social conformity or cues that bullshitting is expected or necessary for success (e.g., Spicer’s [2020] ‘speech communities’; Ferreira et al., 2022). Integrating Ferreira et al.’s (2022) observations with the ease of passing bullshit hypothesis (Petrocelli, 2018) workplace bullshitting climate is expected to increase all categories of motives for bullshitting in the workplace.
Opportunity-Enhancing Organizational Practices
Human resource management (HRM) scholars (e.g., Combs et al., 2006; Lepak et al., 2006) maintain that certain HR practices benefit employees and firms by providing employees the opportunity to express themselves and contribute to organizational objectives through greater decision-making authority and responsibility. Such opportunity-enhancing practices that encourage involvement in quality improvement groups, joint management-worker committees, and upward feedback systems surely satisfy employee needs for competence and autonomy (Gardner et al., 2011). All the same, they might also (inadvertently) nurture those conditions that “require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about”, or “opportunities to speak about some topic [that] are more extensive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic” (e.g., Frankfurt, 2005, p. 63). Organizations that insist on employee input into decision making via quality circles and problem-solving or consultative committees might also compel bullshitting to ‘appear knowledgeable or competent’ or ‘avoid appearing unknowledgeable or incompetent’. Indeed, Petrocelli (2018) provides evidence that bullshitting is more likely when social expectations to have an opinion are strong. Opportunity-enhancing HR practices might similarly create opportunity and obligation for bullshitting in the workplace, particularly for the purpose of getting ahead or getting away.
Job-Level Antecedents
Control Systems
Control systems are job-level characteristics of organizational governance structures that try to align individual and group behavior with organizational objectives (Anderson & Oliver, 1987). Whereas behavior control systems involve considerable managerial monitoring and direction around what employees know and how they behave (e.g., skills developed, helping others), outcome control systems—largely concentrated in competitive sales and professional services jobs (e.g., consulting, financial services; Bergeron et al., 2013)—focus primarily on results (e.g., billable hours, number of sales, etc.). Compared to behavior control systems, employees in outcome control jobs are given less direction and may be less knowledgeable about the company and its products/services (Oliver & Anderson, 1994; Román & Munuera‐Alemán, 2005). Presumably, this is because such systems downplay workforce knowledge and competency development. Instead, they transfer the burden of performing to employees and compensate them for bearing this burden (i.e., sales are rewarded; lost sales generate no revenue and opportunity costs; Robertson & Anderson, 1993).
All told, employees operating in outcome control jobs are left on their own to achieve results while assuming management does not care how results are achieved. These conditions generate plentiful opportunity for bullshitting while minimizing risk of detection. As Petrocelli (2018) observed, people more readily engage in bullshitting when they are unfamiliar with a topic but feel obligated to provide an opinion—circumstances that closely resemble those under outcome control systems, which de-value employee competencies while encouraging pursuit of immediate results. Outcome control jobs should therefore incite motivation for bullshitting, particularly for the purposes of getting ahead. For example, as one of our respondents remarked: “I was trying to preserve both the hourly rate that I was receiving, and the number of hours that I could bill”.
Job Characteristics
Figure 3 incorporates role ambiguity and role overload as other job-level antecedents. Role ambiguity reflects a perceived lack of job-related information regarding such things as performance expectations, goals, authority, and duties (Breaugh & Colihan, 1994). Role overload is characterized by perceiving excessive role demands relative to one’s abilities or resources needed to fulfil them (Rizzo et al., 1970). Indistinctly defined or overloaded jobs elicit negative emotions, uncertainty, and stress (Eatough et al., 2011), which individuals are motivated to regulate. Among the varied workplace bullshitting motives, these job characteristics should mostly encourage bullshitting for the purposes of getting away and getting along. Because they are perceived as hindrances to work achievement, role ambiguity and overload are likely to elicit avoidance tendencies (Eatough et al., 2011), where employees try to ‘get away’ from the sources of strain (e.g., “I was trying to get a week off of work. I needed a breather”). Employees with unclear or excessive job demands may also favor bullshitting for the purpose of getting along, as this can strengthen their social support and coping resources (Spicer, 2020) or provide a means to vent psychological discomfort and sustain cognitive consistency toward the job via playful bullshitting with peers about their performance expectations or responsibilities.
Person-Level Antecedents
Job Embeddedness
Employees’ desire to stay in their organization—best captured by their job embeddedness (Mitchell et al., 2001)—is another factor that should influence motives for bullshitting at work, because embedded employees are motivated to pursue their career and relationship goals within the current organization (e.g., Kiazad et al., 2020). Their broad-ranging and trusted links, greater access to power and influence, and ability to broker and control information flow makes them especially likely to use bullshitting for the purposes of getting ahead and getting along. More generally, embedded employees have greater knowledge of the organization and its members, and signal a strong aversion to leaving (or having incurred many opportunity costs by staying), making them more trusted or favorably appraised as ‘loyal’ organizational citizens, which should boost their motivation to use bullshitting to advance their career and relationship goals.
Political Skill
The notion of a ‘bullshit artist’ implies that bullshitting involves some degree of skillfulness or craftsmanship (e.g., improvisation, quick-wittedness; Frankfurt, 2005). Since bullshitting can beget social penalties if detected (damaged reputation, social exclusion), employees should be more motivated to use bullshit when they believe they have the personal resources to do so successfully (i.e., ability to hide their indifference to truth or facts, discern when and how to use bullshit). One relevant personal resource is political skill, defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris et al., 2005, p. 127). Employees that are politically astute should be more motivated to use bullshitting, because they are more perceptive of their work environment, better able to adapt their bullshitting to diverse and powerful targets, and appear as being authentic, sincere, and genuine. By facilitating general ease of bullshitting, political skill should elicit all of the workplace bullshitting motives.
Dark Triad Traits
Figure 3 highlights Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (aka, the ‘dark triad’; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) as dispositional antecedents of the workplace bullshitting motives. These personality dimensions characterize either an inclination toward self-enhancement (Machiavellianism; getting ahead/away); yearning for admiration (narcissism; getting along/around), or impulsivity and anxiety (psychopathy; getting away). Given their distinct origins, these ‘dark triad’ traits should assert differential associations with the workplace bullshitting motives. Machiavellianism is expected to most strongly promote bullshitting for the purposes of getting ahead or getting away, given Machiavellians’ fervent need for power, status, and dominance (Dahling et al., 2009), which should manifest more in bullshitting that serves motives of advancing self-interest, mitigating self-esteem threats, or amplifying status differences (e.g., exaggerating achievements, downplaying personal causes for failure, etc.). Narcissists are characterized as “charmers who can convert the masses with their rhetoric” (Maccoby, 2004, p. 70). Their greater yearning for others’ admiration and affirmation should culminate more readily in workplace bullshitting for the purposes of getting along or getting around (e.g., difficult conversations). Finally, psychopaths should mostly diffuse workplace bullshitting for the purpose of getting away. Heightened impulsivity, anxiety in unpredictable situations (Derefinko, 2015; Sabouri et al., 2016), and a reduced ability to delay gratification (Luhmann et al., 2011), makes psychopathic individuals more likely to use bullshitting to avoid accountability or withdraw from work (Blickle & Schütte, 2017).
Outcomes
Figure 3 depicts possible outcomes of the workplace bullshitting motives via bullshitting behavior. Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) captures employees’ idiosyncratic evaluations of their personal adequacy and worthiness as organizational members (Gardner & Pierce, 1998); performance evaluations reflect evaluations of completed in-role tasks (performance appraisals; Wayne & Liden, 1995); career success includes the positive intrinsic (career satisfaction) and extrinsic (e.g., promotions, income) outcomes of one’s career (Judge et al., 1995; Seibert et al., 1999). Our typology permits understanding of how workplace bullshitting motives differentially influence outcomes.
Getting Ahead Outcomes
These motives largely assist with self and career advancement and should positively influence all outcomes. For example, ‘upselling oneself’, ‘trying to appear knowledgeable or competent’, or ‘[trying] to gain respect or admiration’, can amplify status differences (Pfeffer & Fong, 2005) and OBSE (Gardner & Pierce, 1998), particularly when peers and superiors react favorably via compliments and praise. Bullshitting for the purpose of getting ahead can also be identity-enhancing via self-affirmation, where people come to believe their own bullshit to sustain a positive self-view (‘to motivate oneself’, ‘to self-affirm or gain self-respect’). As Spicer (2020, p. 14) articulates, “bullshit can enable bullshitters to conjure a kind of “self-confidence trick”’. Those who use bullshit to appear industrious, motivated, and competent may favorably alter others’ impressions about their productivity and potential, yielding them favorable performance appraisals and access to career benefits (‘improve one’s performance image’, ‘obtain job benefits’, ‘to secure a job opportunity’, etc.).
Getting Away Outcomes
These motives focus on self-protection and work withdrawal, including defensive forms of impression management designed to protect one’s image (‘save face’, ‘avoid blame’) or prevent other undesirable end states (self-esteem losses, lost access to job resources and opportunities; Ellis et al., 2002). Littrell et al. (2021, p. 6) similarly distinguished evasive bullshitting as a method for dodging direct answers that otherwise “might result in undesirable social costs”. Thus, bullshitting deductions, predictions, or retrospective justifications can help employees mitigate uncertainty around their professional identity and place within the organization, preserving their sense of belonging (e.g., Spicer, 2020) and thus OBSE. Even so, these motives should suppress performance evaluations and career attainments. For example, using bullshit ‘to reduce time pressure’, ‘avoid blame’, or ‘to avoid making someone angry’—despite alleviating role stress and anxiety—might concurrently expose undesirable attributes (i.e., insecurity, lack of confidence, unreliability) that interfere with productivity ratings or access to career resources. More generally, bullshitting to get time off work or to keep one’s job and its associated benefits should elicit the kinds of outcomes commonly associated with ‘reluctant stayers’ who withhold discretionary effort, performing “just enough not to get fired” (Hom et al., 2012, p. 842).
Getting Along Outcomes
These motives service needs for affiliation and belonging (Barrick et al., 2002; Deci & Ryan, 1985), corroborating past theoretical assertions of bullshitting as a social practice that allows people to pass time together (Mears, 2002) or fit into workplace speech communities (Spicer, 2020). Likewise, they should also elicit positive effects on OBSE, performance evaluations, and markers of career success. Our typology reveals how employees use bullshitting ‘to pass downtime’ or raise collective stimulation through various forms of fun and play (‘be humorous or jokey’, ‘playfully prank someone’; Petelczyc et al., 2018). Such active participation in a workgroup’s social life can promote OBSE by nurturing employee self-perceptions of being an important, impactful, and trusted workgroup member (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). At the same time, bullshitting for the purpose of getting along can benefit employees’ OBSE and performance/career outcomes by helping them build social capital (‘to facilitate social bonding’), align with powerful others (Pfeffer & Fong, 2005), and gain social legitimacy and acceptance (‘to be likeable’). For example, bullshitted flattery, compliments, or opinion conformity might elicit more social inclusion, better performance evaluations, and superior access to career resources via interpersonal mechanisms of likeability, ‘in-group favoritism’, or career sponsorship (Bolino et al., 2006).
Getting Around Outcomes
These motives serve to protect interpersonal relationships and others from emotional harm—in other words, they capture the altruistic and prosocial sides of workplace bullshitting—a perspective largely downplayed in existing literature. Bullshitting at work provides a way around difficult conversations or ‘painful truths’ that otherwise might cause relationship harm (Christensen et al., 2019; Littrell et al., 2021). In this way, bullshitting can also help resolve the ‘honesty-benevolence tension’ (Levine & Schweitzer, 2014). It provides a means to ‘conceal jealousy’, politely handle annoying interactions (‘avoid or change a conversation’), or minimize unpleasant messages (Tesser & Rosen, 1972). Christensen et al. (2019) similarly envisioned how bullshitting enables managers to command employees into action without coming across as brutish and unfashionable.
Bullshitting for the purpose of getting around may have a complex relationship with OBSE. For example, bullshitting altruistically to ‘protect the welfare of others’ or ‘appease someone’ can generate positive self-worth, shaping employee self-inferences of being a valuable and meaningful employee whose actions helped a colleague avoid harm. Conversely, bullshitting to get around might negatively influence OBSE by triggering employee self-perceptions that they lack confidence or ability to initiate changes that are important to improving their own or others’ circumstances at work. The question of how these workplace bullshitting motives relate to OBSE is an empirical one that future research can explore. As for the other outcomes, to the extent that performance evaluations and career attainments are based on preventing interpersonal disharmony and strain, then bullshitting for the purpose of getting around may have positive implications. Otherwise, motives associated with affability and agreeableness tend to associate negatively with performance ratings and career accomplishments (Boudreau et al., 2001; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Similarly, bullshitting to protect or appease colleagues, or to avoid difficult conversations may signal passivity, inactiveness, or ‘fence-sitting’, not typical indicators of performance effectiveness or motivation to succeed within the organization.
Implications for Practice
The prevailing view among bullshitologists has been to regard workplace bullshitting as inherently unpleasant, immoral, or undesirable. This is unsurprising given that bullshitting by definition violates deep-rooted principles of virtuosity. Even Frankfurt (2006, p. 22) admits that “any society that manages to be even minimally functional must have…a robust appreciation of the endlessly protean utility of truth”. Thus, scholars have developed comprehensive guidelines (McCarthy et al., 2020) and frameworks (Spicer, 2013, 2020) to help organizations protect themselves from workplace bullshit and bullshitting. Yet, our findings suggest that workplace bullshitting is not always undesirable. Our typology highlights how bullshitting might also facilitate relationship-building and relationship-protection. It is crucial for managers to recognize that bullshitting can also be integral to social-organizational life, and embrace it with a critical open-mind.
However, targeted interventions are necessary when bullshitting is primarily motivated by getting ahead. Employers often face uncertainty when making decisions about promotions and rewards, lacking complete information about an employee’s productivity and potential. In these situations, within the constraints of ‘bounded rationality’ (Rousseau, 2020), decision-makers rely on signals (such as know-how competencies and personal attributes) to deduce the applicant’s merit and potential. Such uncertainty-laden conditions are ripe for bullshitting (Spicer, 2020), especially for employees looking to get ahead. McCarthy et al. (2020) provide clear recommendations on how managers can identify and deal with such behavior. In particular, managers should be mindful of signals that are excessively self-enhancing. According to McCarthy et al. (2020, p. 258), such signals “will lack details, sources, and logic”.
Even so, a more pre-emptive approach would be to formally incorporate evidence-based management principles (EBM; Rousseau, 2020) into hiring and reward allocation practices (e.g., performance review paperwork and discussions). EMB encourages decision makers to seek and use multiple sources of evidence, vetted for quality, rather than deferring to personal intuition or organizational tradition (McCarthy et al., 2020; Rousseau, 2020). Decision-making processes grounded in careful attention to quality evidence uphold principles of procedural fairness and do not let bullshit pass (McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2020). Even individuals with promotion-focused mindsets should hesitate to engage in bullshitting when they do not anticipate getting away with it, particularly given the risks, such as a damaged reputation and the prospect of reprimands (Petrocelli, 2018).
As for getting away, the below incidents described by our participants reveal that bullshitting servicing this function is partly attributable to excessive job demands or misfit: I did not want to work extra hours because I had other commitments which needed to be worked on after work…so I had to find a way to convince the supervisor to let me go. I wanted an extension on a deadline so I didn’t have to rush and have work consume my life. We had too many customers. I felt overwhelmed. I wanted to avoid admitting that I do not like working on those types of projects…and that I find the tasks to be very boring.
Role overload might provoke bullshitting that helps one withdraw from work (absenteeism) or preserve a stable self or social image (dodging accountability). Overloaded employees might likewise feel compelled to bullshit their way out of work to manage work stress, or attribute underperformance to external causes (to maintain a positive self-view or prevent job loss). Thus, managers should establish explicit role definitions and evaluation criteria (performance expectations, goals, and authority), and seek feedback from employees concerning their understanding of role requirements and performance expectations. Moreover, managers should have realistic expectations of what employees can accomplish during work hours, respecting their non-work commitments (reducing overtime, providing flexible work arrangements). They should ensure employees’ allotted workloads do not exceed their capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, abilities) to meet those demands (person-job fit), or use stress-reduction interventions to decrease demands (e.g., job rotation) or increase employees’ resources (e.g., mentoring and skill development) to meet job demands.
Limitations and Future Research
We recognize several potential limitations in our research. First, the data relied on retrospective accounts, making it difficult to verify whether the incidents were (ironically) fabricated or subject to the inaccuracy of recall (Brainerd et al., 2003). There is also the possibility that participants selectively chose emotionally-charged incidents (Zimmerman & Kelley, 2010), or reconstructed motives to appear more socially desirable (Richman et al., 1999), which may limit the breadth of motives represented in our typology. However, evidence suggests that workplace bullshitting is commonplace and our findings show the diverse range of motives behind it, including some that are not necessarily socially undesirable. Furthermore, the immediacy of social desirability pressure is likely diminished when recalling past events. We took precautions such as stringent inclusion criteria, reassured participants that their responses would be confidential, and asked them to recall, in detail, recent incidents in their current workplace.
Second, our typology is by no means exhaustive. Respecting core principles of qualitative research, we did not “impose prior constructs or theories on the informants” in order to enable “rich opportunities for discovery of new concepts” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 17). Still, our typology is based on data obtained entirely from U.S. based workers, and might not necessarily transfer to other samples or cultures. However, meta-analytic evidence supports the transferability of data from such samples (Walter et al., 2019). Additionally, our typology might not encompass all possible motives for workplace bullshitting. For instance, bullshitting might serve greater prosocial functions, such as protecting colleagues from exploitation or helping them get ahead in their careers. And surprisingly, our data did not reveal much of a sinister side to workplace bullshitting, such as its use to service goals of revenge, backstabbing, or sabotage (i.e., getting back). For instance, workplace bullshitting might serve motives associated with workplace retaliation or undermining of perceived wrong-doers (Bordia et al., 2008). Advancing Christensen et al.’s (2019) bullshit-as-commanding perspective, abusive bosses might similarly engage in bullshitting to threaten and intimidate subordinates, or take credit for their work (Tepper, 2000). Overall, future research can expand our typology to explore the pro- and anti-social sides of workplace bullshitting.
Third, the configurations derived from MDS may not always be readily interpretable, particularly where dimensional (as opposed to neighborhood) interpretation is used (Kruskal & Wish, 1978). As Kruskal and Wish (1978, p. 16) argue, “neighborhood interpretation can reveal other patterns in the data [because] its focus is primarily on the small distances (large similarities), while a dimensional approach attends most to the large distances”. Adhering to Kruskal and Wish (1978) and others (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Simon & Eby, 2003; Thompson, 1983), we used a dimensional approach. Still, some motives are not easily interpretable along our two-dimensional configuration (e.g., ‘avoid conflict’), or they appear dissimilar to other motives in their space (e.g., ‘change someone’s belief or information set’). Like Simon and Eby (2003), we inferred potential criteria by which Phase 2 participants made similarity judgments, and we subjected these to empirical validation using a separate sample in Phase 3. Although research and theory guided our interpretation, Phase 2 participants may nevertheless have used different frames of reference for their similarity judgements. Future research could explicitly ask participants to specify and weigh the criteria they use when making similarity judgements to explore alternative theoretical possibilities or replicate and refine our interpretations as needed.
The nature of our (MTurk) sample may raise concerns about the generalizability of our findings. Specifically, our use of MTurkers limited our control over sampling and data collection, and the amount of information we had about participants. Despite this, a large and consistent body of work shows that, when carefully monitored for data quality, MTurk participants are appropriate for social science research (e.g., Berinsky et al., 2012; Goodman et al., 2013; Keith et al., 2017; Paolacci et al., 2010). To ensure rigorous data quality, we incorporated recommended safeguards, including attention/comprehension check and robot filters (Keith et al., 2017). These measures were applied consistently across all studies. Finally, participants in our study may have experienced fatigue in Phases 2 and 3, given the high number of required responses. This fatigue could lead to inattentive responding, including straight-lining or random answers. To mitigate this risk, we embedded four attention check questions at random points throughout the survey. Participants who failed any of these checks were excluded from the analysis.
Conclusion
Harry Frankfurt (2005, p. 23) described bullshitting as the act of “trying to get away with something”. Inspired by this notion, our research aimed to uncover, organize, and substantiate the underlying motives behind workplace bullshitting. In doing so, we have developed a typology of motives that serves as a foundational framework for furthering scholarly knowledge of workplace bullshitting. Our typology brings together diverse motives that drive workplace bullshitting, offering a cohesive and systematic approach to understanding this phenomenon. By structuring these motives theoretically under getting ahead, getting along, getting around, and getting out, we have shed light on the multifaceted nature of workplace bullshitting and its various functions within organizations. By continuing to investigate workplace bullshitting, we can advance knowledge, inform practice, and promote healthier, and more authentic organizational environments.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Workplace Bullshitting: A Multidimensional Analysis of Motives
Supplemental Material for Workplace Bullshitting: A Multidimensional Analysis of Motives by Kohyar Kiazad, Fan Xuan (Jordan) Chen, and Simon Lloyd D. Restubog in Group & Organization Management.
Footnotes
Author's Note
We acknowledge Kaveh Kiazad for his contributions and M. Teresa Cardador for her insightful feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
