![Organisations are stupid but there is a way to fight back, says business professor Mats Alvesson.](/content/dam/images/g/u/x/3/7/0/image.related.afrArticleLead.620x350.guu5b8.png/1491519275067.jpg)
![](/web/20170415100652im_/http://www.afr.com/content/dam/images/1/4/3/2/9/h/image.imgtype.afrAuthorAvatar.120x120.png/1435473315479.png)
Ever wondered why corporate language is so empty, or why organisations often put high importance on tasks which, by any objective measure, are pointless?
It turns out there’s a reason: organisations are stupid.
This is the contention of Swedish business professor Mats Alvesson, who’s built a theory of corporate behaviour and written a successful book based on the idea.
Corporations may be dumb but they are not dumb without reason, he says, because stupidity is a trait which has a superficial allure. It’s easier for people in large organisations not to rock the boat.
![Stupidity has power but there are also pitfalls, the authors say.](/content/dam/images/g/p/k/x/j/e/image.imgtype.afrArticleInline.620x0.png/1491458803025.jpg)
“A lot of us would experience this dilemma,” he told a recent seminar at the University of Sydney. “I should really speak up but it’s difficult and tricky.”
So instead people let stupidity happen. They don’t question decisions which they believe are wrong and they allow themselves to get caught up in group think that has no real basis.
“It is stupid but it leads to a lot of positive consequences, at least in the short term. Such as comfort and trust. There are smooth relations [in the organisation]. You are not making people embarrassed or uncomfortable,” he says.
Stupidity may not make sense, but it makes organisations work more smoothly. It makes them functional. That’s why he called his book, written with André Spicer, The Stupidity Paradox.
Defence mechanism
He says that both employers and managers often adopt stupidity as a defence mechanism when they are confronted by complex problems. It makes them appear to be easily solved when, in fact, they are not.
“We need to simplify reality in order to get by,” says Alvesson who is based at Sweden’s Lund University but spends two months each year at the University of Queensland Business School.
Typically organisational leaders will adopt a positive mantra – be optimistic, see the challenge – which disguises the real problems.
Alvesson says the failure of mobile phone giant Nokia is a case study in functional stupidity.
“There was an emphasis [at Nokia] on being optimistic, showing potential, being progressive, passing on positive news. A culture of positivity is good for atmosphere, but you repress awareness of problems and you filter information,” he says.
“Some people say this is the key reason why Nokia went so badly. It led to filtered information and then bad decision-making.”
Alvesson sees another manifestation of functional stupidity in the ever-proliferating corporate mission statements and management buzz words.
Why do we have mission statements, he asks. “Nobody cares. It takes a lot of time and energy. My guess is that for 95 per cent of organisations it has no consequence at all apart from keeping some people busy.”
And as for the buzz words: “They are fluffy, kind of vague, very positive sounding, but meaningless.”
Words like excellence, vision, critical thinking, talent, diversity, quality, innovation and entrepreneurship. They do have an actual meaning but this gets lost in the “endless circulation of noise” of corporate communications.
He sees four main ways that people submit to stupidity. One is over deference to authority: the boss knows best. Another is being blinded by the buzz words of management speak. A third is resignation: this is how the world operates, we can’t do anything about it. It is bad or problematic or stupid, but this is how it is. Finally there is knowing acceptance: this is nonsense but we’ll see what comes out of it. We’ll play along.
Don’t give in
But we should not give in to stupidity, we should resist it, Alvesson says.
Organisations should encourage people to be devil’s advocates, arguing for the opposite of whatever the corporate mandated line is. Also mirth is an effective weapon. Companies need a court jester, who can speak truth to power cloaked in humour, he says.
Or devise anti-slogans which are ironic ripostes to the usual positive, but meaningless, slogans encountered in organisations such as “be customer oriented”.
An example of an anti-slogan? “Cover your ass.” It would spark discussion about actual corporate behaviour instead of promoting an idealised version.
And for the company which really wants to stamp out stupidity, why not play bullshit bingo.
Alvesson says the rules are simple. People are told to make a note of the meaningless buzz words they come across in the course of their work.
“When you identify 10 of them you shout, ‘Bullshit!’ Like when you play bingo,” Alvesson says. The prize should be a gift such as a bottle of wine. “You may get an angry look from your boss as well.”
Like Leadership with the Financial Review on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Join the LinkedIn conversation.