Bullfighting in the business arena: Evidence-based strategies for detecting and disposing of organizational bullshit

Organizations frequently tolerate communication delivered without regard for truth, evidence, or established knowledge in decision-making and accountability contexts—what philosophers and psychologists term bullshit . Unlike lies, which deliberately subvert truth, bullshit represents an indifference to accuracy, which experimental research suggests may make it both more prevalent and paradoxically more persuasive in domains where evidence-based reasoning is critical. Studies indicate that bullshit-framed arguments may outperform evidence-based reasoning in influencing attitudes, and produce stronger sleeper effects over time, with the potential to gradually degrade organizational decision-making quality. This article focuses specifically on bullshit’s harmful effects in decision-making, performance evaluation, and accountability reporting—contexts where factual accuracy is essential—while explicitly recognizing that strategic ambiguity, aspirational talk, and selective communication serve legitimate functions in vision-setting, coalition-building, and innovation contexts. The analysis synthesizes experimental findings from social psychology with organizational cases including Alan Mulally’s transformation of Ford Motor Company and the Madoff investment fraud to offer practitioners theoretically informed propositions for building more bullshit-resistant decision-making cultures. A managerial playbook offers theoretically derived implementation frameworks with explicit boundary conditions, including proposed reality-testing protocols and meeting reform guidelines. A decision framework helps practitioners distinguish contexts requiring evidence-based clarity from contexts where ambiguity legitimately serves. Drawing on scholarship in psychological safety, employee voice and silence, impression management, and organizational learning, the analysis explores why bullshit may flourish despite its harmful effects and identifies systemic organizational dynamics that warrant attention.