Collaboration Can Encourage Corruption, Lying

Damon Jones

Damon Jones

Many corporations encourage collaboration and make it part of culture statements and annual performance reviews.
Cisco Systems, for example, defined collaboration as “working across boundaries, building teams, managing conflict, earning trust, and recognizing good performance,” part of the CLEAD performance management and development system.

Mark Greenberg

Mark Greenberg

Ability to collaborate develops in childhood and is associated with positive life outcomes, demonstrated in a two decade longitudinal study of more than 750 Americans from kindergarten into adulthood by Penn State’s Damon Jones, Mark Greenberg and Daniel Max Crowley.

Daniel Max Crowley

Daniel Max Crowley

They found that kindergartners whose teachers rated them highly on social competence dimensions including:

Ori Weisel

Ori Weisel

Although collaborative settings may boost honesty due to increased observability, accountability, University of Nottingham’s Ori Weisel and Shaul Shalvi of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev showed that collaboration among equals can trigger corruption by lying, misreporting, and exaggerating performance.

Shaul Shalvi

Shaul Shalvi

They experimentally evaluated performance between 280 partners on a die rolling task for which they earned cash.
Player A privately rolled a die and reported the result to player B, who then privately rolled and reported the result.
Both players were paid only if they both reported the same results — for example, if both reported rolling “6”, each earned €6.

Robert S Feldman

Robert S Feldman

Players tended to inflate potential profit by misreporting actual outcomes, demonstrated by the proportion of reported matches.
The probability of rolling the same number in each round was one in six, or an average of 3.33 times in 20 rounds.
However, teams reported an average of 16.3 matches—nearly five times the expected number, demonstrating likely misrepresentation to achieve financial payoff.

Participants also lied even when they did not benefit, provided their partner benefitted.
Wiesel and Shalvi explained that “people are willing to pay the moral cost of lying even if they don’t stand to get any material benefit—the only benefit is the joy of collaboration.

Paul Ekman

Paul Ekman

When partners’ payoffs were not aligned, they were less likely to inaccurately report performance.
This finding suggests that participants were more likely to engage in “corrupt collaboration” when lying was financially advantageous to themselves and their partners.

Lying, one component of “corrupt collaboration,” occurs many times each day, according to University of Massachusetts’ Robert Feldman.
In fact, he found that two people getting acquainted lied an average of three times in ten minutes.

James Tyler

James Tyler

However, lying may not be detected in collaborative situations.
Feldman asserts that “no single or even combination of verbal or nonverbal behaviors accurately indicate when a person is lying… Most people have no better than a coin-flip chance of telling a lie from the truth….And many of the cues we think are associated with lying are unrelated to deception.”
This view is more pessimistic than  Paul Ekman’s contention that lying can be detected.

Andreas Reichert

Andreas Reichert

Besides being potentially difficult to detect in collaborative situations, lying can be contagious.
For example, volunteers were more likely to engage in their own deceptive behavior toward others as a result of being duped, in research by Purdue’s James M. Tyler, Robert S. Feldman of University of Massachusetts with Andreas Reichert of University of Konstanz.

Greg Willard

Greg Willard

Corrupt collaboration practices like lying may persist due to financial and other benefits.
In fact, people who lie also demonstrated more confidence, higher  achievement goals, positive affect, and composure during a stressful mock job interview scenario by Harvard’s Greg Willard and Richard Gramzow of Syracuse University.

However, when liars knew that their embellishments would be verified, their performance – and their prevarications – were reduced over time.
This finding suggests that visible monitoring seem to curb the potential downsides of collaboration in the workplace.

Richard Gramzow

Richard Gramzow

Despite collaboration’s purported positive effects on innovation, this teamwork approach can be accompanied by a side effect of enabling willful and reckless “corruption”, lying, and exaggeration.
However, this darker side of collaboration can be reduced by verifying the trust instilled in others.

-*How have you maximized the benefit of collaboration and team work while reducing the likelihood of developing “corrupt collaboration”?

Follow-share-like http://www.kathrynwelds.com and @kathrynwelds

Related Posts:

 Twitter: @kathrynwelds
Google+
LinkedIn Groups Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook

Blog: – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary

©Kathryn Welds

Advertisements

One thought on “Collaboration Can Encourage Corruption, Lying

  1. kathrynwelds Post author

    Gary W. Kelly wrote:

    In the 1980s Tom Peters wrote of a technique–management by walking about. He suggests that managers should walk about the workplace as a regular part of their work. I used the technique myself while managing a group of young people, and found it extremely helpful. One learns much by simply being present, and the interest one takes in the employees, their work, and their goals, has its own dividend. It helped me to understand any issues that were arising–conflicts, or misunderstandings.

    This should be done so frequently that the employees feel one is a fixture. They should be relaxed, and able to express themselves, so that emotions are aired before they generate reactions that are more difficult to mediate. It was a good test, as these young people had little prior work history, so did not have prior experience to guide their behaviors.

    Kathryn Welds replied:

    Thanks so much for the reminder of MBWO – Management By Walking Around. Here’s an empirical study by Anita Tucker and Sara Singer of Harvard that validates the practice – http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-113_9a2bc5e8-2f70-4288-bb88-aeb2de49e955.pdf

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s