questions that require evidence rather than allowing ambiguous answers. For example, don’t ask: “Do you have any experience with a particular software platform?” Instead, ask candidates to demonstrate their proficiency by explaining how they’ve used specific features, or by sharing content they created with the platform in question. Another strategy is to establish protocols that reduce “wriggle room” for evasion. These could include transparent reporting structures, regular accountability meetings with supervisors, and clear documentation. Our study shows that silence can also indicate deception. The omission of crucial information, incomplete reports, or the inability to respond to a question warrant further investigation. Research has shown that people are particularly poor at recognising the implications of missing information. A good rule of thumb is that if information is withheld, it is likely because the communicator believes they would not benefit from others having that information. Above all, business leaders should cultivate a culture founded on transparency and integrity, where honesty receives recognition and mistakes become learning opportunities. This can alleviate the pressure employees feel to deceive, encouraging them to openly discuss errors or challenges with supervisors rather than concealing them.
Lead the future Step away from the office to find out what makes you an effective leader.
Discover our leadership programmes: ■ The Strategic Mindset of Leadership ■ Leadership for a Complex World ■ WBS Executive Leadership programme ■ WBS Emerging Leaders programme.
deceived their partner when they could use evasion rather than a direct lie. This is no small increase, given that a substantial number of people will tell the truth under almost any circumstances. This pattern indicates that moral flexibility increases when people can justify their deception through less explicit means. Senders were also less likely to lie or avoid the truth if we told them the receiver would discover their deceit, even if this was a complete stranger they would never meet. Simply being reminded of the possibility of being exposed reduced the desire to deceive others. However, even in this case, selective truth was still chosen more frequently than direct lies. Indirect deception can lead us to make wrong decisions. Receivers were more likely to choose red if they heard a selective truth than if they received feigned ignorance or silence. Indirect deception or evasion is also less easy to detect than direct lies. It is harder to identify that deception has actually occurred, and even harder to prove it. So how can business leaders
“Our findings suggest that
uncover and even prevent deception? One strategy is to communicate expectations clearly and require staff to outline what they plan to do for a specific task in advance. Removing ambiguity leaves less room for deception. Moreover, evasion is easier to detect when there is a clear expectation for a direct answer. Consider how suspicious we are when politicians attempt to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. Another approach is to create environments that minimise opportunities for evasive responses. During job interviews, this could involve asking candidates direct people are more willing to engage in indirect forms of deception than direct lies”
Find out more: wbs.ac.uk/go/p67
Learn to apply behavioural insights with Behavioural Science in Practice .
Sustainable Development Goals
Warwick Business School | wbs.ac.uk
wbs.ac.uk | Warwick Business School
66
67
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog