Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-30
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Guillaume Desjardins, Associate professor, Industrial Relations, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)
Lying at work is rarely spectacular. It rather takes the form of calculated silences and half-truths. And it often says more about the organization than about individual morality.
Let’s imagine that an employee is just one transaction away from reaching their quota and that you are the last customer on a quiet Friday night in their store. Why might they promise you a 24-hour delivery to close the sale, even though they know very well that this deadline probably will not be met?
Lying is generally defined as thedeliberate transmission of false or misleading information, and represents the most visible manifestation of duplicity, understood here as all intentionally deceptive practices in a professional context. But these behaviors are not always explicit: the omission of information or their strategic manipulation also form part of the phenomenon.
Today, lying at work is no longer considered merely an individual moral failing.Recent researchshow that this behavior often reflects broader organizational and structural dynamics.
Early research focused on a psychological perspective, linking duplicitous tendencies to individual dispositions such as Machiavellianism and narcissism. However, over time, research has expanded to include sociological and organizational frameworks that take into account environmental pressures andinstitutional contexts conducive to deception.
Contemporary literature emphasizes that employees’ behaviors are often shaped by institutional norms. However, until recently, there was no validated tool to measure employees’ perception of the necessity to resort to duplicity. The publication of the scaleOrganizational Induced Duplicity_ (OID)has made it possible to fill this gap.
What is the individual contribution to the lie?
Some studies have shown that there is nono difference between men and womenin terms of lying in the work context. Individual traits, such as Machiavellianism, can predict dishonest behaviors, especially during interactions with clients.
But the contribution of these factors remainsvery low(less than 5%) to explain the propensity to lie. Therefore, one must look beyond individuals to understand this phenomenon.
Also to read:
How to retain high-performing employees while optimizing their psychological well-being?
Two much more important organizational elements
A recent studyidentifies two major organizational elements to explain the presence or absence of lies at work.
1. Laissez-faire leadership
This non-interventionist style of leadership, where leaders avoid making decisions and do not provide clear direction, is systematically associated with negative outcomes in work teams, particularly regarding the propensity to lie.
For example, a manager might, during team meetings, give meaningless instructions such as: “I don’t have to explain to you how to do your job, you already know it!” This kind of sentence gives the impression of giving orders without taking responsibility for them.
In these environments, the absence of ethical standards, accountability mechanisms, and supervision increases the likelihood that employees engage in deceptive behaviors. This is particularly problematic in customer-facing roles, where employees may perceive dishonesty as a legitimate means to achieve their goals, especially if management does not discourage such behaviors.
2. Perceived managerial integrity
The perceived integrity of managers – their consistency, honesty, and moral orientation – plays a central role in promoting ethical behaviors.The studiesagree that ethical managers are distinguished by seven elements: consistency between words and actions, fairness in decision-making, keeping commitments, communication transparency, responsibility, compliance with organizational standards, and respectful treatment of employees under their supervision.
For example, if a manager states that work–life balance is an organizational priority, they will themselves limit communications outside of working hours and respect their employees’ time off.
Do employees feel that their manager keeps their promises? Does the manager adhere to the same ethical standards as their employees? Does the manager consistently apply organizational policies, including when they are restrictive for the manager themselves? These are signs of an ethical manager.
Already thousands of subscribers to the newsletter ofThe Conversation. And you? Subscribe to our service for freenewsletterto better understand the major contemporary issues.
When employees perceive their managers as honest, they are more likely to adopt ethical standards and resist dishonest behaviors, including lying or duplicity towards clients. Thus, the manager’s integrity acts as a protective factor to prevent dishonest behavior at work.
Also to read:
Isolated, pressured, stressed: here is how to reduce social anxiety among sales professionals
What should we change at work?
The leadership style and integrity of managers determine how employees perceive the necessity or legitimacy of duplicity.
Committed managers, clear in their expectations and consistent in their decisions, reduce ambiguity and “gray areas” where deception can take hold. They provide a framework where employees can ask questions or report problems without fear.
Conversely, research reveals that laissez-faire leadership encourages the emergence of duplicity.Previous researchhave systematically associated this leadership with role ambiguity, moral disengagement, and an increase in deviant behaviors. In practical terms, managers who neglect their role as ethical regulators inadvertently create a normative void in which performance pressures, customer demands, and opportunistic interpretations of organizational goals can override formal ethical expectations.
Finally, competitive mechanisms (bonuses, rankings, performance targets) are not inherently problematic. Their impact depends on how managers oversee them: when combined with integral and active leadership, they can motivate without encouraging dishonesty. In other words, just because your salesperson is paid on commission doesn’t necessarily mean they will be inclined to engage in duplicity!
Guillaume Desjardins has received funding from the FRSQ as well as from the Government of Canada.
Gia Linh Lam received funding from the University of Ottawa.
–ref. Why employees lie (and what managers can do about it) –https://theconversation.com/why-employees-lie-and-what-managers-can-do-about-it-277309