Most people will know someone who talks a big game at work, but when it comes down to it, isn’t as competent as they pretend to be. These ‘organisational charlatans’ or ‘false performers’ exist in every kind of organisation, and their behaviours can negatively impact the work they are meant to be doing, and the colleagues they work with.
New research from the University of Birmingham, Bournemouth University and the University of Worcester, hasexamined what people think of false performers and argues that HR departments need to be more aware of these behaviours and find ways to deal with them.
The paper has been published in Behavioural Sciences.
Dr Marie Dunnion, Research Fellow in Psychology at the University of Birmingham, and lead author of the study, said: “I am sure that most people can think of at least one colleague they have encountered over their working life when they hear the term ‘false performer.’ Someone who knows all the right things to say to the bosses but can’t actually do the job.
“But despite us all knowing someone who fits the bill, often HR departments aren’t equipped to deal with these people. This is especially the case in the public sector, where key performance indicators and targets can be less stringent than in corporate settings. We wanted to talk to people about this behaviour to understand their experiences and perceptions of it.”
The researchers spoke to 51 public sector employees, half management and half non-management level, about their experiences of false performers. They discussed false performers in the workplace, and in job interviews or performance appraisals.
“These false performers know that they are out of their depth at work and so will use a variety of tactics to hide this fact. Taking credit for work that they didn’t do, hyping themselves up to management, and being performative at work can all help to divert attention away from the fact they can’t do their job. Because of this, it can be hard for people to raise concerns, or for managers to see the truth of the matter.”
–Dr Marie Dunnion, University of Birmingham
Examples of false performance in the workplace, which emerged in group discussions, fell into three main categories:
- Claiming credit for others’ work.
- Bosses over-delegating to subordinates to mask their own incompetence.
- Shifting the blame to other people or factors to hide their mistakes.
Examples from interviews and appraisals were also split into three categories:
- Exaggerating or lying about their qualifications.
- Over-talking as a smoke screen to prevent detection of false performance.
- Claiming credit for other’s work in 1-2-1 settings with managers/bosses.
Dr Dunnion explained: “These false performers know that they are out of their depth at work and so will use a variety of tactics to hide this fact. Taking credit for work that they didn’t do, hyping themselves up to management, and being performative at work can all help to divert attention away from the fact they can’t do their job. Because of this it can hard for people to raise concerns, or for mangers to see the truth of the matter.
“In our groups people said that they were scared to report false performers to a manager, and that competent co-workers felt demoralised due to false performers ‘doing well’ at work, and in some cases even getting promoted.”
“False performance behaviour could even become contagious amongst the workforce. It is important that managers and HR teams have methods in place to deal with incompetent people pretending to be otherwise, often at the expense of others.”
–Dr Marie Dunnion, University of Birmingham
The paper argues that there are steps that HR departments can take in order to try and reduce instances of false performance. Developing training for the detection and management of false performers for managers in interviews and then in work, could help senior leaders spot potential problems earlier on. Operating a 360-degree appraisal policy to gain multiple co-worker and stakeholder views and feedback could make it easier to get the real picture of someone’s performance, rather than relying on complaints or false performers coming clean.
While these are two starting points, the researchers say that HR departments should be aware of false performing employees deliberately inputting information which might co-contaminate the process, which is meant to help identify and deal with false performers.
Dr Dunnion concluded: “Job interviews are the first chance that many of us have to make a good first impression on a potential employer, so talking about our strengths is to be expected. But for some, it goes much further than that. And our research suggests that once a false performer is in post, there is little that can be done to try and fix the problem. Often these scenarios are delicate and can feel personal, so it is a thorny issue to deal with. But, if HR departments don’t do anything, the negative effects on the wider team could cause even more harm than having a difficult conversation and improving false performer prevention. False performance behaviour could even become contagious amongst the workforce. It is important that managers and HR teams have methods in place to deal with incompetent people pretending to be otherwise, often at the expense of others.”
