Seven subtle strategies of lying leaders
This is the first in a three-part series focusing on the seductive power of lying and how dangerous this practice can be when it is adopted by those in leadership. The next blog in the series will focus on ‘six reasons why people gravitate towards lying leaders’ and the final offering will delve into ‘six ‘fatal’ character flaws of lying leaders’.
Lying is as old as humanity itself. Think back to the murder of Abel by Cain and you will get a sense of how much time it has taken to perfect the art of deception. However, as much as we may have become accustomed to leaders who lie, the practice is still frowned upon and depending on the circumstances and gravity of offence could even get you fired or prosecuted.
Despite all this, leaders still lie. In many cases they do so irrespective of the risks or in flagrant disregard of them. How are they able to get away with it and what is their end game? Set out below are seven subtle strategies of lying leaders.
1. Desensitise to normalise
When leaders lie, it is not just unprofessional, it is fundamentally a betrayal of trust. However, if this is not followed up with accountability for action, the process of desensitisation sets in. When leaders who lie go unchallenged, that which is unacceptable slowly becomes tolerable and thereafter, it becomes normalised. The furrowed brow of outrage quickly morphs into rolling eyes of frustration and eventually shoulder shrugging indifference. At this stage, leaders who lie, are not bothered that you can distinguish between right and wrong, so long you don’t care enough to do anything about it.
2. The ‘straw man’ caricature
One of the most insidious aspects of leadership lying is the process of minimisation. To avoid the consequences of their actions, you will often see these individuals at pains to lessen their behaviour implying that it is either unimportant or not that serious. A classic tactic used by lying leaders is ‘what-about-ism’. This is where the conduct of others is highlighted as a justification or moral equivalency’. Liars skilled in this practice, are usually able to misdirect those who might otherwise seek to escalate their concerns, by attempting to minimise the gravity of their conduct.
3. The ‘kompromat’ principle
‘Kompromat’ is a phrase in the Russian language, which describes information that could be used to compromise or damage another. For leaders who lie, ‘kompromat’ is prized for one reason: it gives them leverage over others. With leverage, the vulnerable can be coerced into silence or extorted into compliance. When those who were once well placed to oppose misconduct, find themselves deposed by their own lack of fidelity, they are in no position to be arbiters of truth. Leaders who lie are on the constant prowl for the ‘gotcha moment’, to entrap those careless enough to offer it on a plate.
4. Climate of contestability
It goes without saying that when the light of truth is applied, lies will always be exposed. So, what does the lying leader do? They undermine truth itself. Instead of being the gold standard against which to test veracity, they present it as an opinion amongst a range of opinions. Failing that, they attack it outright as an insignificance, impediment and inconvenience to free and creative thought. It is these two strategies that create the perfect climate for contestability, where the legitimate currency of truth is devalued in favour of a counterfeit.
5. Accountability avoidance
Neutralising the willingness to challenge is not the ultimate power grab, it is the ultimate surrender of power. After all, if I am never held to account, then I can do whatever I want and if I can do whatever I want, then I am effectively ‘above the law’. When an organisation of any description cedes power in this way, it is more likely than not that it will slide into a kind of pseudo dictatorship or authoritarianism. Within this environment, lying leaders are effectively free to engage in whatever brand of unlawful behaviour they choose, whilst unburdened by any prospect of accountability for their conduct.
6. Indoctrination of the indecisive
Probably the worst response to offer in the face of lying leaders is indecision. To be indecisive is just as bad as indifference, because it can often be taken as tacit approval. There is also the risk that indecision can have a ‘chilling effect’ especially where a lack of decisiveness appears to be motivated by fear of retribution. Liars thrive amongst the indecisive primarily because they recognise, that the longer those with principles remain silent, the less likely they are to speak out. To that extent, the indecisive can quickly find themselves intimidated into silence and eventually indoctrinated into compliance.
7. The spectrum of unlimited allowability
Once a lying leader advances up the scale of allowability, the risks and hazards for those in their sphere of influence are truly dire. The spectrum of unlimited allowability is a gradient, with nuisance value behaviour at one end and egregious, dangerous and even criminal conduct at the other. For liars, the underpinning principle is not to do what is permissible, but rather to establish permissibility by what they do. Therefore, if no attempt is made to rein them in at the beginning, they will almost certainly tell bigger and bigger lies where the consequences, scope and harms are much more serious.
For the most part, lying is a tactical response that is used in the moment to save face, embellish achievements or extricate oneself from a tight spot. None of these are acceptable excuses for lying, but they do explain why such conduct may occur. But what about lying as a strategy of leadership? When leaders systematically lie, they do so not out of necessity, but rather out of a sense of entitlement. Therefore, the strategy of lying, is not a reflex action to save themselves, it is to create an eco-system to serve themselves.
