There is plain language. Plain language is the use of precise words and phrases to communicate something clearly and concisely. More importantly, it is the avoidance of the many bad habits that obscure meaning, such as cliché, buzzwords, passive sentence structures, and euphemism. Then there is straight-talk. Whereas plain language is almost entirely about the clarity and conciseness of meaning, straight-talk is about directness and candor of conversation. People often don’t say what’s on their minds because they fear that their real views will cause offense … or embarrassment … or opposition … or a variety of other repercussions. And so, in most workplaces, people don’t “talk straight,” with plain language usually suffering as a side-effect. Why would you talk clearly and concisely when you’re trying to hide your views?

Of course, the harm is more complicated than that. Some harms come in the form of self-censorship, evasiveness, issue-avoidance, face-saving rituals, and self-interested appeals to politeness and decorum. But the big harms come from bullshit and lying. Drawing from Frankfurter’s brilliant essay About Bullshit (2005), when someone is bullshitting, they are trying to convince you of something but (unlike a liar) they don’t really care whether it is correct or not. They’re just using phoniness and distraction to persuade without care about the merits of the case. In contrast, lying is a knowing dishonesty, although all Western cultures categorize the harm according to some sort of continuum (from minor fibs to malicious slanders to destructive deceits). When someone is found to be lying, their credibility and career may take a heavy punch to the solar plexus. When found to be bullshitting, a person usually gets a dainty slap on the wrist. Indeed, there are many “plausible deniability” situations whereby the bullshitter can claim to be misunderstood or just joking around.

Beyond Bullsh*t: Straight-Talk at Work by Samuel A. Culbert (Stanford University Press, 2008), pp. xv, 152.

I preface with these distinc­tions because I’d like to delve down further into the organ­isa­tional implications of bull­shit (which I’ve discussed before, here) and straight-talk. This is mainly because Samuel Culbert has written a thought-provoking book about bullshit at work called Beyond Bullsh*t. Correction: the book is about bullsh*t not bullshit because apparently Princeton University Press can print a popular book about this cuss-word but Stanford University Press can not. An editor thought it necessary to put a fig-leaf asterisk over the vowel “i”, the most phallic of vowels. Or does Culbert have a self-defeating hang-up about this particular bit of vulgarity? (He raises the question but doesn’t really answer it.)

Before we can look at Culbert’s analysis of bullshit at work, we need to go through the conceptual issues. That’s partly because Frankfurter came up with such a precise and well thought-out definition of bullshit. And it’s partly because pundits who pay homage to Frankfurter also abuse his definition without much qualification. They typically attach the “bullshit” label to virtually anything they dislike because it doesn’t conform to their ideological beliefs. I’m mainly talking about Penny (2005) but I’ve encountered other examples. Culbert pays homage to Frankfurter’s definition but does his own stretching.

There are three elements to bullshit according to Frankfurter. Bullshit is an act of misrepresentation or deception. Bullshit is phony because there is no interest in the truth (or falsity, for that matter). Finally, bullshit is distracting insofar as it employs extravagant terms and phrases (cliché, bombast, and the like). Everything here assumes that bullshit is the content of communication. Culbert departs by claiming that bullshit includes both communication and acts: “I’ve defined bullsh*t as words spoken or actions taken with the goal of getting people to go along with an agenda without the communicator giving serious consideration to the veracity of the communication.” (p. 31) This puts Culbert closer to the throw-away rhetorical notion of bullshit whereby any bit of phoniness or conceit deserves the label. “It’s all bullshit,” a frustrated worker might say after a hard day at work. As Culbert’s book proceeds, this expansive notion is used more. It comes at the expense of precision and coherence of his argument. Indeed, any form of organisational politics seems to fall under the term … plus much else.

Culbert’s main contribution comes from also defining straight-talk and related concepts. He sees straight-talk as having three elements. Straight-talk is about (a.) integrity. It is truthful, at least as far as the communicator knows. A person can be self-interested while speaking the truth but straight-talk also implies consideration of the well-being of others. Straight-talk is, therefore, (b.) reciprocally accountable. It is acknowledged that people may have different interests yet there is an attempt to align (“synergize”) personal agendas. Finally, straight-talk is (c.) ethical. This is a narrow notion of ethics, whereby the person considers advancing the common good and doing no harm to others. Culbert emphasizes the non-conspiratorial nature of this ethical stance. Culbert also makes a distinction between straight-talk and “i-speak”. I-speak is the notion that you are speaking the truth as you know it, as opposed to some irrefutable objective reality (“we-talk”). It includes a self-awareness of the limits of your own knowledge and other people’s interests and view points. Culbert also sees this humble form of relativism as inherently civil because of the acknowledgment of fallibility.

Thus, taken as a whole, straight-talk is more than just truth-telling. Truth-telling doesn’t entail a consideration of others and may be used in manipulative ways. Likewise, honesty and candor can be episodic or specific to an incident, episode, or topic. Truth-telling can also be forced. In contrast, straight talk is not unilateral nor coerced, but is about the building of relationships.

In my mind, this is controversial for two reasons. First, according to this view, straight-talk involves a type of deep engagement with others that is somewhat idealistic. It excludes all sorts of forthright communications. Second, Colbert goes so far as to argue that truth-telling can actually be bullshit if it is opportunistic. In fact, he argues that truth-telling is bullshit unless it includes everyone’s understanding of truth within a larger conversation.

I have three bigger criticisms of Colbert’s view.

First, there is an egalitarianism and relativism that stretches the notions of straight-talk and bullshit beyond recognition. It’s no wonder that he sees virtually everything as bullshit and thinks straight-talk as rare. I remain a devotee of Frankfurter’s original definition of bullshit because it seems closer to the commonplace meaning of the term and lacks all of this ideological baggage. I would also reframe straight-talk in like manner.

In my version, straight-talk would be about the (a.) integrity of communication, as in honesty and plain-speak (making your meaning clear and avoiding evasive language). Straight talk involves (b.) directness. It is to-the-point or on-topic without resorting to distracting tangents and subterfuge. Straight talk is about (c.) disclosing information relevant to the conversation, as in candor. This openness and forthrightness means acknowledging the limits of personal knowledge and expertise (a nod to Frankfurter, who notes that asking someone to respond beyond their capacity is a major cause of bullshit). In other words, you can’t be talking straight if you are pretending to be versed in a subject that you’re not (not “bullshitting your way though a conversation” when there are gaps in knowledge). It is also about being considerate of other’s information needs, including information that others should hear whether they like it or not (as in telling “inconvenient truths”). Finally, straight-talk is about (d.) disclosing motives, if relevant. When you’re talking straight, you’re telling others where you are coming from and making your interests and assumptions known. This alternative version is closer to the notions of candor and directness that most people think about when using the term “straight-talk”.

Second, I object to Culbert’s anti-empirical stance. Culbert’s straight-talk is inherently about, what epistemologists call, negotiating inter-subjective meaning. If there is no universal truth, then it is up to people to come to some agreement about what is deemed correct. That is why Culbert emphasizes dialogue so much: a person can’t just talk straight, in his view, they must discuss straight. I won’t get into a deep discussion about the philosophy of knowledge here. I’ll just note my empirical, pro-science view of truth. There is such a thing as a universal truth, although we should be sensitive to human fallibility and the limits of our ability to ascertain what that truth is. This involves humility, appeals to evidence, and only tentative claims to truth. But it doesn’t reject the potential for universal truth out of hand, as Culbert does quite bluntly at several points. I would also note that there is something cynical about Culbert’s postmodern view of straight-talk. If straight-talk requires conversation, then all sorts of speech can not live up to this standard (such as a public speech). That’s why he introduces the alternative concept of i-speak as a lesser standard for “unilateral speech” to live up to.

My final criticism is about the practicality of Culbert’s notions of straight-talk and bullshit. Straight-talk is an ideal that is difficult to live up to except in deep, mutually regarding conversations. Conversely, bullshit is a somewhat cynical smearing of a large portion of everything else. The first notion is too narrow and the second notion is too broad. I would argue that Frankfurther’s definition of bullshit and my definition of straight-talk are more precise. These allow people to better differentiate forms of communication to avoid and to promote.

Culbert seems to acknowledge the difficulty of achieving his version of straight-talk. I say that because he claims that straight-talk is rarely advisable in the workplace. This is partly for obvious political reasons. People who talk-straight all of the time (as opposed to within trusting relationships) make themselves a target and a political blunderer. Culbert’s discussion of the employee-supervisor relationship is most interesting on this count. Drawing from his previous book Don’t Kill the Bosses! (2001), Culbert notes that managers may have different views of loyalty. Some managers see candor and contrary feedback from employees as a form of loyalty because they help prevent the manager from screwing up. Yet other managers see agreement and compliance as a form of loyalty (“collusive loyalty,” a great coinage). Of course, a good manager knows that both have their place. This means that straight-talk is advisable depending on the manager and the circumstance. To Colbert, with his narrower notion, straight-talk is only advisable once a manager and employee have developed a non-hierarchical, two-way accountability. Without the need to hide motives, such conversations become more efficient because they’re less defensive and more to-the-point. Accordingly, Colbert doesn’t think you can create an entirely straight-talking workplace. Instead, the best that can be hoped for is the creation of straight-talk cohorts within the workplace.

Given that both Colbert and I think that there is a certain inevitability to politics in the workplace, at least in large ones, we are closer to agreement on these points. Where we differ is that Colbert argues that there are certain “landmine topics” that need to be avoided because they’re too personal, fractious, or explosive. Here I think he’s making a justification to avoid difficult conversations. I think that there is a literature with a great deal of sound advice about how to cope in such circumstances. I’m talking about Stone et al.’s Critical Conversations (2000), Scott’s Fierce Conversations (2002), and Patterson et al.’s Crucial Conversations (2002). Not all of this advice is golden but there are insights to mine.

In sum, I think Colbert has made an important contribution to the fledgling literature on bullshit by getting us to look at the other side of the coin—straight-talk. I disagree with where he takes these concepts, both on practical and philosophical grounds. He does make a number of interesting observations about openness and forthrightness in the workplace throughout his book—minor points I haven’t discussed here. Nonetheless, I still think that a definitive treatment of the subject has yet to be written.

Review by Peter Stoyko

REFERENCES