The Truth About Lying I: the Individual Perspective
Some years ago, while engaged in a merger and transformation project in Johannesburg South Africa, one of us [KW] began the project by interviewing all senior executives in the four companies being merged into a single organization. Not all these company leaders were happy about the merger. Clearly, there would only be one new CEO who would likely select his or her own senior leadership team. The competition was intense.
During this series of interviews, I was struck by one senior leader who gave vivid descriptions of attempts by other leaders to undermine and destroy his business and attack him personally. This particular interview was early in the interviewing process, and I was able to test this individual’s concerns in later interviews. It became evident that this individual was not paranoid, but rather cunning and manipulative, attempting to gain favor and influence my perspective in later interviews. The degree to which this person was initially charming and convincing and seemingly attempting to be “my new best friend” was quite scary in retrospect. Leadership coaches and consultants need to be on the lookout for (often subtle) signs of these Machiavellian personalities.
Why some people lie and why others believe
As Denisi notes, “skillful liars are dangerous people” and use lies, deception and sow subtle doubt, as manipulative tools for their own personal benefit and self-protection. The problem is when belief in these lies by “in-groups” places the in-group members themselves in danger. Two current (at the time of writing) examples include misinformation about diseases such as Covid and vaccines as well as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
But there are two sides to this story – some people lie, and others believe the lie. The seemingly strange contradiction is that research shows that people believe misinformation and lies not simply because they are gullible or stupid, but because it makes them feel good. Believing and corralling around certain lies, misinformation or conspiracy theories makes people feel good about themselves as part of their affiliation with an in-group. “People believe stories that reinforce or reward the way that they see the world. They share stories that boost their ego or make them feel like part of a team”. We tend to believe lies or misinformation because we want to believe them. It takes mental effort, critical thinking skills and self-awareness to briefly mentally step-back from misinformation that conforms to our belief systems and conduct a brief fact-check and question the validity of misinformation.
This is difficult when the “truth” contradicts who we are and how our in-group collectively thinks. The dissonance of holding two opposing beliefs creates psychological stress and it is mentally easier and feels better to simply believe what makes us feel good. For example, if I am part of an in-group who collectively believe that Covid-19 vaccines are a government strategy (possibly orchestrated by Bill Gates) to control and manipulate citizens, and we are later confronted by compelling evidence that unvaccinated people are dying at a much faster rate than others, cognitive dissonance creates mental anxiety of maintaining two simultaneous conflicting cognitions – I need to believe one or the other to have some peace of mind. However, if I dismiss my in-group’s views, I am likely to be sidelined by my in-group, whether those be my friends, family and other people that I feel strongly a part of. I will likely side with my in-group!
This very powerful and important imperative to resolve cognitive dissonance began in the mind and research conducted by Kurt Lewin, a noted social psychologist displaced from Nazi Germany, who received a contract from the US government to find ways that would encourage women in America during World War II to reduce the number of meals during which they served meat (this meat being served instead to those men who were fighting the war). Lewin asked women to prepare brief presentations regarding the benefits (and patriotic duties) associated with serving meatless meals. Lewin was not interested in the effect of these presentations on other women. He wanted to find out if the presenting women’s personal attitudes about meatless meals would themselves change. He found that this did indeed take place.
