The reduction of employee lying behaviour

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse employees’ lying behaviour and its findings have important implication for the management and prevention strategies of lying in the workplace. Employee lying has caused both reputational and financial damage to employers, organisations and public authorities. This study adopts a psycho-cognitive perspective to examine the mechanism of lying reduction and the influence envy has on lying behaviour. Design/methodology/approach – Incorporating social comparison phenomenon and cognate studies this study suggests that envy may restrain people from lying in the workplace. Specific hypotheses are developed and tested with 271 participants using dice game scenarios. Findings – Research findings have found that people are likely to lie if lying brings them benefits. However, the findings also reveal that the envy aroused between two people may act as a psychological barrier to reduce the tendency to lie. Originality/value – The research findings have provided an alternative perspective to the current prevailing view of envy as a negative emotion. Envy need not always be negative. Envy can provide an internal drive for people to work harder and enhance themselves but it can also act as a brake mechanism and self-regulator to reduce lying, and thereby has a potentially positive value.

Politicians lie, so do I

“…To examine the influence of politician-priming on lying behavior, we conducted a series of experiments, in which participants played dice games in scenario-based conditions. Scenario-based design often has been adopted for topics in which real-life testing would raise ethical concerns from stakeholders including university ethics boards (e.g., Celse et al, 2016; Shalvi, Handgraaf, & De Dreu, 2011). In the case of lying behavior, it would not be desirable to encourage this type of behavior in the workplace and observe any effects.…”

“…This design allowed participants to see dice readings through the peephole and only the participants could see the actual readings. Celse et al (2016) comment that such design has incurred a probability of lying, as participants can choose to lie (reporting higher readings to gain higher earnings) and not lie (reporting actual readings). This is because the statistical probability of reporting a specific reading (from #1 to #6) is one in six and hence 16.67%.…”

“…Lying could be intervened by conscious inhibitors such as corporate ethics, work ethos, honour codes and emotions (Celse et al, 2016; Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008). A group of scholars also indicate that moral reminders (e.g., religious statements, honor codes) reduce participants’ tendency to lie, by which moral reminders act as a moderator in decreasing the frequency of dishonest behavior (Ayal, Gino, Barkan, & Ariely, 2015; Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, & Bazerman, 2012).…”

“…To analyze the motives and mechanism underlying lying, scholars have examined the lying behavior through a variety of perspectives. These perspectives include, for instance, development of lying ability (Evans and Lee 2013), intention and justification of lying (Bok 1999), ubiquity of lying (DePaulo 2004), face-to-face vs. computer-mediated lying (Hancock, Thom-Santelli, & Ritchie, 2004), lying detection ability (Levine, Serota, & Shulman, 2010) and emotional inhibitors of lying (Celse, Chang, Max, & Quinton, 2016). Lying brings interests to the person who lie (liar), either immediately or at a later stage (DePaulo 2004).…”

“…Kashy and DePaulo (1996) claim that people’s ability to lie successfully may impact how often they lie. Celse et al (2016) suggest that envy refrains lying behavior. Taken together, prior studies have shown some insights into the view that lying may occur in the absence of conscious intervention.…”