The Harvard Business Review's Terrible Article on Why Employees Lie

The Harvard Business review publishes lots of great articles and insights on all things business. But occasionally, the HBR publishes an article that can only be described as a raging dumpster fire. Last week, the HBR published a piece called Why People Lie at Work --- and What to Do About It by a business consultant named Liz Kislik.

The general premise of the article can be summarized as follows: Employees lie for one of three reasons: (1) They are afraid of creating conflict or delivering bad news. (2) They are incompetent and lie because they cannot actually perform their job. (3) They are truly self-serving. The author suggests that that only employees who fit in category (3) are coming from a bad or negative place. These employees she calls "trickier to deal with."

Let's stop right here and address the problems with this categorization. As a threshold matter, let me clarify: We are not talking about white lies. That alone presents a question of judgment and boundaries. What is a white lie? I will leave that up to your individual judgment. It is much easier to define what constitutes a lie about material facts in a business context. Lies about finances and money? Definitely material. Lies about compliance? Same. Lies about what clients said or did? Absolutely. You get the picture. Now, let's go back to the 3 categories.

Take category 1: Fear of upsetting someone or causing conflict. The author gives an example of one of her coaching clients (of course): This client was a corporate vice president who was responsible for setting up a new division within his company. He was not hitting his targets. So he would - the author writes - "fudge his numbers." Stop right there. You already know the author is not credible. Let's just focus on this absurd example:

A corporate vice president lying about his division's sales numbers is not "fudging the numbers." It's fraud. This sort of fraudulent conduct has numerous consequences. It implicates the following (and more): That executive's compensation. The compensation of other employees in the division. The company's bottom line. Future earnings projections. Resource allocation. Shareholders. Investors. There could be a securities fraud class action and Sarbanes Oxley problems.

This is a big deal. And it's ugly. But the author classifies this employees as being in the relatively innocent category of employees who lie because they are afraid of upsetting people or conflict. That, of course, is bullshit. Let's call our VP Joe. Joe is not just lying to avoid conflict. Joe's lie is very much self serving. It allows him to avoid admitting that he has not hit the earnings targets. It allows him to avoid explaining why he did not hit those targets. Unless uncovered, the lie probably gives him greater job security. And the lie probably impacts Joe's compensation (i.e. commissions, MBO comp, etc.).

The ultimate point here is that the author's categorization scheme is built on a false premise. Almost all lies are self-serving. Especially lies like these. But we haven't even reached my central grievance: The author's proposed solutions.

Let's stick with Joe. Anyone who has any meaningful experience in law or business would probably start with this solution: Fire Joe. He's lying about corporate finances. That creates massive risk, has countless negative consequences, and is a nonstarter. But that's not what the author recommends! Instead, she talks about doing personal coaching with Joe: coaching Joe on how to tell the truth! She also argues that companies need to coax the truth out of employees by providing them the "psychological safety that will encourage them to tell the truth."

Now take category 2: Incompetent employees. The author suggests that incompetent employees are more apt to lie because they simply cannot do the job. They will always fall short and always feel a need to lie to cover up for their shortcomings. Once again, the author's solution is truly mind-blowing. Does the author suggest firing these people and hiring more competent employees? No. Instead, the author suggests "restructuring" the job responsibilities and expectations for these incompetent employees. The author's logic: Lessen the expectations. Then maybe the employees will be successful and not feel a need to lie to cover up for poor performance.

All of this is terribly backwards. The author starts from the premise that lying about materials facts in a business context is not an issue of character or ethics. It most certainly is. People with high character and ethics do not lie in business. They do not lie when it is easier or more convenient. They tell the truth. Even when that means disappointing someone, dealing with conflict, or admitting their own inadequacy. The author takes lying, which is a character flaw and an ethics issue, and transforms it into a coaching and training issue. So now, it's not that the employee should have some personal accountability and already know better. It's that the company needs to do more and better training. This is absurd but not surprising. The author is a "business coach". So, quite naturally, she is using her huge platform in the HBR to market her services.

Final thoughts.

1. The article is nakedly a marketing/promotional piece. Shocking that the HBR published something this absurd.
2. Lots of HR people read the HBR. And because it says HARVARD on it, they believe everything that the HBR prints. You cannot and should not believe any particular idea or concept just because it is published in a "prestigious" publication. You always need to think about it yourself.
3. I see lots of companies where HR and legal don't really have open lines of communication. HR is basically afraid of legal. And legal regards HR as a joke. This sort of balkanization is a disaster waiting to happen. HR and legal should have an excellent relationship and always maintain open lines of communication. HR should be able to pick up the phone at any time, call legal, and at least speak with an attorney. It shouldn't be a big deal. It shouldn't need to be formal. It should be easy.
4. Following this author's advice is a recipe for disaster. When employees lie about material facts, the default rule should be firing them. Yes, firing them. Ouch, that sounds mean. But consider this: Over the past decade, the overwhelming majority of my clients have been employees and entrepreneurs. Sure, I sometimes represent companies. But in a case that's employer vs. employee, I'm on the employee side 90% of the time. And in spite of that, this is still my guidance. Why? Because I'm not a hack trolling for business. I'm a truth teller.

Jonathan Pollard is a competition and employment lawyer. His firm is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In addition to law, Pollard is an expert witness, writer, consultant, real estate investor, and litigation funder. His office can be reached at 954-332-2380.