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
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.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:
- Managing Pressure: The Unexpected
- When projects falter, we expect demands for status and explanations. What's puzzling is how often this
happens to projects that aren't in trouble. Here's Part II of a catalog of strategies for managing
pressure.
- Management Debt: II
- As with technical debt, we incur management debt when we make choices that carry with them recurring
costs. How can we quantify management debt?
- Holding Back: I
- When members of teams or groups hold back their efforts toward achieving group goals, schedule and budget
problems can arise, along with frustration and destructive intra-group conflict. What causes this behavior?
- Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Creation
- Three feelings are often confused with each other: embarrassment, shame, and guilt. To understand how
to cope with these feelings, begin by understanding what different kinds of situations we use when we
create these feelings.
- The Illusion of Explanatory Depth
- The illusion of explanatory depth is the tendency of humans to believe they understand something better
than they actually do. Discovering the illusion when you're explaining something is worse than embarrassing.
It can be career ending.
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
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.
- Wikipedia has a nice article with a list of additional resources
- Some public libraries offer collections. Here's an example from Saskatoon.
- Check my own links collection
- LinkedIn's Office Politics discussion group