Deceptive Communications at Work

Used responsibly, communication is our method for constructively propagating ideas within and among groups, for testing those ideas, for selecting the most promising ones, and for making decisions about adopting them. Communication can also be abused to persuade organizations to adopt policies that benefit their advocates more than they benefit the organization.

Deceptive communication is one technique of communication abuse. It is any intentional action (or inaction) associated with communication that creates advantages for the deceiver by causing others to adopt or retain false models of reality.

Lies are one common example. But there are many much less obvious methods of deceptive communication. Here are three.

Flawed metaphors

Because metaphors are approximations to reality, some deceivers use metaphors to distort the target's thinking. One example: "Second quarter results suggest that we've hit a speed bump." Using this metaphor could be deceptive because it suggests that the slowdown is small and its duration short. But when you first encounter a speed bump, you can't really tell how long it will last or how big the bump is. Maybe it's actually a warning curb right in front of a brick wall thirty feet thick. The speed bump metaphor thus conceals the issues of severity and duration of the revenue decline. Similar tricks are possible with analogies. Unless we think very carefully about the metaphors and analogies deceivers use, we're likely to be deceived.

Meta-deceptive communications

Meta-deceptive communications are deceptive communications about others' communications. Thus, intentionally identifying as deceptive a communication that's known to be truthful is an example of deceptive communication, as is intentionally failing Lies are one common example
of deceptive communications,
but there are many much
less obvious methodsto identify as deceptive a communication that's known to be deceptive. Less egregious, perhaps, is identifying as deceptive a communication that one isn't certain is deceptive, without revealing the uncertainty, as is failing to identify as potentially deceptive a communication that one strongly suspects is deceptive.

Slow-talking

Pace of speech varies from person to person, and time to time. Occasionally, a speaker's pace is so slow that impatient audience members, unbidden, complete the speaker's thought. When this happens naturally, it can be a sign of a group working well together. But deceivers who wish to avoid explicitly stating something inflammatory or accusatory can slow-talk to exploit impatient audience members, who then "pick up the ball" and run with it. In this way, the slow-talking speaker avoids saying anything that could later be regarded as a violation of decorum or ethics. The technique is especially valuable when the unspoken thought is an accusation that the slow-talker knows to be false.

These are simple examples of deceptive communications. The full catalog is both enormous and dynamic, because as technologies evolve, some deceptions become transparent or useless, and new deceptions arise. In coming weeks, we'll explore the general properties of deceptive communications at work.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Getting Into the Conversation

In well-facilitated meetings, facilitators work hard to ensure that all participants have opportunities to contribute. The story is rather different for many meetings, where getting into the conversation can be challenging for some.

Not Really Part of the Team: II

When some team members hang back, declining to show initiative, we tend to overlook the possibility that their behavior is a response to something happening within or around the team. Too often we hold responsible the person who's hanging back. What other explanations are possible?

Anticipate Counter-Communication

Effective communication enables two parties to collaborate. Counter-communication is information provided by a third party that contradicts the basis of agreements or undermines that collaboration.

Projection Deception

Practitioners of the dark side of workplace politics are skilled in the art of deception. One technique involves exploiting psychological projection on the part of the person deceived.

Rescheduling: The Paradox of Politics

When the current project schedule no longer leads to acceptable results, we must reschedule. Sometimes political factors compel us to not only delay our results, but also to produce those results in ways that accommodate organizational politics.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info