Ben Brooks envisions how stupid business decisions get made. I've directly witnessed such business decisions, so I can add some detail to his NY Post scenario.

Not every corporation is like this, but it is prevalent. It comes down to two things: stupid options have to be presented, and they are presented in obfuscated business-speak.

Of course, no one wants to waste an executive's time with a stupid option. But if there's an article about a crazy idea in a trade magazine, or someone's kid has discovered a trendy thing, then that option has to be presented to the executives. If you don't, they'll bring it up anyway, and it's a loss of credibility for not including it. So there's almost always a stupid option on the table.

In many corporate cultures, people use the most generalized, watered-down language to sound "businesslike". It's not just about buzzwords, it's about aping business publications and analysts. Eliminating plain language always reduces clarity, but some executives only listen if it sounds "businesslike".

So consultants get skills in presenting stupid options in a "businesslike" way. For example, the option would cause "the business to lose alignment with customer needs", "leave money on the table", or "be perceived by many in an unfavourable light". Sometimes they try to put estimated costs on the stupidity so it's clearly a poor business decision. That sort of thing.

Consultants will sit in a room with a whiteboard and write across the top: "Option 1 makes the company look like idiots." Then they painstakingly translate that into a set of businesslike bullets. And the entire goal is to present that final text to an executive and have them mutter under their breath, "if we did this we'd look like idiots". But often you can't just say it. That's not how it works. You've got a tie on for christ's sake, you're not allowed to tell people they'd look like idiots.

Occasionally the broken-telephone game of "businesslike" translation fails. Like in Ben's make-believe discussion, sometimes an executive will say, "I think we're exaggerating this whole PR issue." And right then, you realize you've just participated in making a really stupid business decision.

I say "participated" because it's hard to say it's 100% anyone's fault. Is it the guy who wanted the stupid option to get tabled? The consultant who didn't translate into negative-enough businesslike terms? The executive making decisions off of watered-down verbiage? It's not just a single person: it takes a village to make really stupid decisions.

It's a reason I like to stick to terse, plain language whenever the audience is open to it. I've seen many fewer poor decisions made when all the elements were explicitly and plainly discussed.