The Jargon Trap, the AI Backlash, and the 48-Hour Cliff
52 episodes. A full year of Frequency, one week at a time.
This week Jenni Field and I covered four stories that don't share a headline but belong together: the psychology of corporate jargon, a growing reader backlash against AI-generated content, what CFOs are quietly planning for admin headcount, and the long-hours myth that research keeps disproving and leaders keep pushing anyway.
The people most impressed by corporate jargon score worst on analytical thinking. And report the highest job satisfaction.
A Cornell psychologist built a "corporate BS receptivity scale" and tested it on more than 1,000 workers. People who rate phrases like "synergistic leadership" as business savvy score significantly lower on analytical thinking, cognitive reflection, and workplace decision-making. Researcher Shane Latrell describes the downstream result as "a clogged toilet of inefficiency," which is a phrase I'll be holding onto.
The satisfaction piece is where it gets uncomfortable. High BS receptivity correlates with higher job satisfaction. The employees most likely to push jargon-heavy leaders up the ladder are the least equipped to notice when those leaders are making bad decisions. Jenni drew from direct experience here: a leader everyone around her found visionary, while she couldn't figure out what he was actually saying. Six months later, she realized she'd been working in a cult. The research explains the mechanism.
AI will make this worse. If AI makes it easier to produce language that sounds confident without meaning much, and people high in BS receptivity are already susceptible to exactly that, we're building better infrastructure for the problem. The classic 2014 Microsoft memo buried 12,000 layoffs under ten paragraphs of abstract language. These aren't just communication failures. They're decisions with real consequences for real people, papered over with words designed to make someone feel sophisticated.
Read: People Who Love Corporate BS Are Bad at Their Jobs (Inc.)
AI;DR is spreading, and it signals something bigger than a social media trend.
AI;DR ("AI Didn't Read") is a term coined by developer David Minajirode to dismiss content that smells like it came from a chatbot. Merriam-Webster's 2025 Word of the Year was SLOP. A 2024 study found more than half of long-form LinkedIn posts are likely AI-assisted. Platform algorithms reward volume, so the content keeps coming regardless of whether anyone actually reads it.
What Jenni and I kept returning to: readers aren't reacting to AI tools specifically. They're reacting to the feeling that someone didn't bother. If you couldn't be bothered to write it, why would anyone be bothered to read it? That's a straightforward exchange, and it applies to internal communications just as directly as it does to LinkedIn.
If employees are mentally flagging AI;DR before they reach the second paragraph of an all-staff message, that's a trust problem. No cleaner template fixes it. AI-assisted writing can be authentic. AI-owned writing, where a communicator hits send on whatever the model produces without actually editing it, usually isn't. Jenni spotted a client comms plan recently that still had "adjust the dates to suit your calendar" in the copy. Nobody touched it. That's the version of this that erodes credibility quietly, over time.
Read: AI;DR Is the New TL;DR (Fast Company)
CFOs expect to cut 0.4% of headcount this year. The jobs disappearing first are the ones that give people a way in.
A survey of around 750 CFOs by Duke economist John Graham and colleagues from the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Richmond found AI had essentially no employment effect in 2025. But CFOs now expect a 0.4% reduction in overall headcount this year, concentrated almost entirely in clerical, administrative, and customer service roles. They were twice as likely to say AI would eliminate these positions as to say it would create anything to replace them.
The 0.4% sounds modest until you run the math at scale. At a company of 200,000 employees, that's 800 people. And these aren't arbitrary roles. Economist Salome Bazelonc flagged them as "stepping stones," the entry-level positions that give workers without degrees a route into organizations. The ATM comparison holds: when ATMs arrived, tellers weren't eliminated; banks opened more branches because the cost per branch fell. That analogy only works if organizations are asking where growth goes, not just where the cost comes out. A lot of CFOs in this survey don't appear to be asking.
Jenni connected this to IBM, who we covered a few episodes back, doubling down on graduate hiring while others quietly trim headcount. The organizations making cuts are almost certainly the ones where employee trust is already fragile. That's where the communication work is hardest and matters most: helping people understand what's happening before they piece it together from rumors.
Read: America's Chief Financial Officers Say AI Is Coming for Admin Jobs (WSJ, paywall)
The productivity evidence on working hours is clear. Output declines past 48 hours and stops contributing past 63. The myth survives anyway.
New World Bank and UC Berkeley research puts the average working adult's week at 42 hours. Stanford analysis of British munitions workers from World War I found output declining beyond 48 hours a week and adding nothing beyond 63. Sergey Brin reportedly called 60 hours the sweet spot. Narayana Murthy of Infosys has advocated for 70-plus-hour weeks. Elon Musk once said nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours, a claim Jenni and I agreed deserves exactly as much attention as we gave it.
Jenni cited Rest by Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, which makes the point that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice only produces results when it's paired with 12,500 hours of rest and 30,000 hours of sleep. We've repeated the first number everywhere and dropped the other two entirely. She also framed the whole question well: if you're asking how many hours your employees should work, that says more about your assumptions than anything in the research.
The honest answer to who benefits from the long-hours myth is the person at the top. When a CEO publicly endorses 60-hour weeks, they're not citing productivity science. They're telling the organization what it actually values and whether it's safe to leave on time. Not everyone wants to change the world. Some people want to do good work, go home, and live their life. That's not a failure of ambition, and organizations that treat it as one tend to find out eventually.
Read: How Many Hours Should Employees Work? (The Economist, paywall)
Written by Chuck Gose, founder of ICology.
The Frequency Podcast
Real talk about comms, culture, and employee experience.
Chuck Gose and Jenni Field skip the buzzwords and get straight to what matters. New episodes every week.
Listen & Subscribe