The C.R.A.P. framework for dealing with bullshit
Programming note: This is my last post before my usual summer hiatus and as such it is on the lighter side of things. The next regular post will be published on Monday, 2 September 2024. Enjoy the rest of August.
Trigger warning: I will use the word ‘bullshit’ a lot in this article. Note that this is not done to offend readers. Instead, ‘bullshit’ is used in its technical definition developed by Harry G. Frankfurt to differentiate it from lying: A liar is someone who knows the truth and distorts it to manipulate people or further an agenda. A bullshitter, meanwhile, makes statements without regard for the truth. They simply want to further their agenda without any care as to whether the statements are true or not. If you feel like you cannot handle this usage, I apologise for any offence I may have already caused, and I suggest you skip this edition.
We are surrounded by bullshit. One might even say we are drowning in it. And while most bullshit is harmful; we note that it depends on the context. André Spicer coined the term ‘artisanal bullshit’, which is deployed in social settings. This is what the English know as banter among friends and colleagues. It is loose talk about one’s achievements or other people’s actions. It is the barrage of ironic and sarcastic opinions and exaggerations you come across everywhere in the UK. In short, it is what lubricates social interaction. Without it, life becomes dull and boring as can be witnessed in countries like Germany and Switzerland, where the concept of ‘banter’ is largely absent. Trust me, this is not bullshit. I know what I am talking about.
But in most cases, bullshit is indeed harmful. And it is particularly harmful, yet also seemingly very widespread, in the workplace.
Harry Frankfurt claimed that bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Which led Ian McCarthy and his co-authors to conclude that “the more often colleagues at work are asked to comment on matters on which they know little or nothing, the more bullshit there is”.
The unfortunate reality is that in the business world, bullshit has grown exponentially even though it is mostly harmful there. After all, if you start making business decisions without regards for the truth, you are inevitably going to make significant mistakes that can lead to huge costs or foregone profits. Yet, as the below overview shows, bullshit comes in many forms in the workplace.
Different forms of misrepresentation
Source: McCarthy et al. (2020)
To tackle this waste problem, McCarthy and his colleagues propose a four-step process:
Comprehend workplace bullshit.
Recognize workplace bullshit.
Act against workplace bullshit.
Prevent workplace bullshit from occurring.
The chart below shows the key elements of the C.R.A.P. framework with some simple explanations.
The C.R.A.P. framework for dealing with workplace bullshit
Source: McCarthy et al. (2020)
I don’t want to discuss the first three steps here because we have already defined what bullshit is and the second and third steps are pretty self-evident, in my view. But let me discuss the fourth step of preventing bullshit from spreading in more detail.
As the chart shows, there are four ways to prevent the dangerous spread of bullshit.
First, there is the emphasis on expertise and evidence. Or to put it simply: everybody is entitled to an opinion, but not every opinion is entitled to count. Opinions are not facts, anecdotes are not data and in a business environment one should always act on data and evidence, not opinions or anecdotes. Which is pretty hard because if you ask me, most ‘management science’ is not science at all, but rather a collection of anecdotes without much support in rigorous research. Books about leadership, the thirty-six habits of highly successful marketers or the diary of a product manager are entertainment. If you make business decisions based on such books you deserve everything you get, which will be mostly mediocre results if not outright failure.
The same goes for much of finance, which is why I have embarked on writing by now more than 1,200 articles demonstrating the data and evidence for or against certain things. Yet, my success in eradicating bullshit in finance and economics has been limited. There are still way more people who believe in theories that have long been refuted than people who practice evidence-based investing.
The second technique to prevent bullshit is critical thinking. All too often we follow our instincts and easily adopt data and evidence that confirm our preconceived notions while dismissing evidence that contradict them. It’s what Daniel Kahneman called system 1 thinking. System 2 thinking is critical thinking, but that is more deliberate and more time intensive. And who has time in the age of social media…
The third technique is to prohibit jargon and statistical trickery (aka chart crimes). As Elon Musk rightfully pointed out in an email to all SpaceX staff one day: jargons and acronyms are inherently untrustworthy and a sign that colleagues are doing meaningless work.
Finally, and my personal pet peeve: eliminate pointless meetings and committees. There are way too many meetings, particularly in large organisations where there are more people with bullshit jobs. If you ever get invited to a ‘coordination meeting’, don’t go. Coordination meetings are always and everywhere unnecessary. Just send the information around and let everybody digest it in their own time. Similarly, meetings where no decisions are taken. Stop wasting my time. I have written about my rules for a good meeting as backed by empirical evidence, but McCarthy and his colleagues put it much more succinctly: “The need for a meeting should be questioned unless an important decision needs to be made”.
Now please go back to your desk, find the bullshit around you, eliminate it where possible and become a crusader against business bullshit. I suggest you start cancelling all unnecessary meetings to free up your calendar for more productive work.
Joachim, I think you and I are somewhat uniquely well-placed to observe the differences between "Anglo-Saxon" (a term I hate) and "DACH" (an equally loathesome term) mores on "artisanal bullshit"/"banter" (yet another BrE term that's sadly become a bit warped over the years to now mean "I just said something really hurtful/mean, but it's just 'banter'")
Anglo-Saxons will often use superlatives to describe things, but it's nuanced. If one is having problems at work, they'll say "I'm the worst fund manager in the world." Or at home "I'm the world's worst parent." What are they after? 1) It's showing some self-awareness that they're flawed and self-critical. 2) They may be trying to milk a bit of sympathy ("oh, c'mon, of course you're not"). On the other side, they may declare "this is the best dinner I've ever had" to make a hostess happy ... it most probably isn't truly the best dinner they've ever had, but it makes everyone feel better. And what's wrong with that?
I also often hear comments from Germans returning from American vacations grumbling about how service people say "have a nice day", or "how are you?" "Well, they don't really mean it, do they? My response is that perhaps they don't, but there's a 50-50 shot they actually do ... whereas in Germany, you know 100% that they hate your guts and loathe their miserable lives. I'd rather delude myself into thinking it was the former rather than the latter. "Servicewüste" indeed. "How are you?" is actually a really useful construction, because it leaves the door open to communicate more effectively, especially in a corporate environment. If the answer is "fine, how 'bout you?" "Fine", then things proceed business-as-usual. If the answer is "well, okay, but I think we might need to go over these figures again", that's a different thing. If it's "well, actually not so hot ... we have a real problem on our hands ..." then people can gear up for a serious discussion. No one is asking for "well, my marriage is in flames and I need another colonoscopy".
Lots of American businesses declare "best hamburger in Cleveland" etc, with zero objective proof. Well, that's seen as the proprietor having a sense of pride, which is in turn seen as admirable. Conversely, when I started working at a German company, I started noticing my employees putting in expense reports where hey'd stayed in the other side of town and racked up massive taxi bills instead of staying in the conference hotel with a bulk group discount. "Well, there's a corporate policy against staying in five-star hotels". I replied "Whose stars? You stayed in a fleabag hotel that was €300 a night and racked up €200 in taxi bills, when you could've paid €200 a night and been on-site for the whole thing!" There was clearly some level of credulousness that somehow these "star ratings" couldn't just be promotional bullshit. I think hyper-credulousness (is that even a word?) is one of the reasons DACH investors would get burned by IPOs; the whole red herring is as promotional as one can legally get, but when I sat down with a young employee and read it critically, their response was "do you really think they might be out to deceive us?" ... "uhhh, yeah!".
On the other hand, I've always been shocked at how readily German professionals routinely refer to themselves as "Experte" with seemingly no sense of self-aware deprecation. "Oh, really? Well *that* remains to be seen, doesn't it?" And of course there's the German "good morning", the length of which is inversely proportional to its insincerity: If it's "(Guten) Morgen" it may be perfunctory, unless it's blasted out as "MAGEN", which is someone trying to attention-seek/assert dominance (especially when entering a meeting room late; interrupting a meeting in progress because *you're* late is about the worst and least self-aware thing one can do in the Anglo-Saxon world ... just slink in with your mouth shut). If someone says "eine Wunderschönen guten Morgen", it's a passive aggressive "screw you!".
A healthy level of "bullshit" greases the wheels of capitalism and human interpersonal relations. That said, I'm really glad you've targeted the corrosive "corporate bullshit" for long-ober criticism. Lucy Kellaway, formerly at the FT, used to write extensively on management bullshit https://www.ft.com/content/a41574d2-1b6e-11e7-a266-12672483791a and its associated excreable jargon https://ig.ft.com/sites/guffipedia/ .
Enjoy your writing break. I've found that "staycations" are often the best ... I'd always infuriate my vacation-mad German colleagues by saying "well, work harder to buy yourself a home that's so nice that you never want to escape from it" ;-)
The crap model for dealing with BS is wonderful! I'm reminded of the Australian saying , 'Shit doesn't happen, assholes cause it.' All of the BS I have witnessed is caused by let's call them 'Takers', who are incompetent aberrant self promoters. 'Givers' are the competent folk in an unhealthy co-dependency with the Takers and spend most of their work-life cleaning up their BS or just doing the work whilst Takers take the credit for it. My best guess based on research and talking with therapists is the Takers make up about 30% of the workforce, That's a lot of BS to 'clean up'. And it only takes one to destroy a whole team or organisation. If only they had a light on their forehead so others could identify who they are....