Leadership Lessons From Political Deception

Last Friday, the House voted to expel Republican Rep. George Santos. This action followed a report released by the House Ethics Committee that revealed a “complex web of unlawful activity” involving Santos’ campaign, personal, and business finances.

The downfall may be explained by two words: “complex web.”

A headline-grabbing crisis is often the result of one poor choice that led to a series of poor choices. Whenever a choice involves deceit, both the public and press will be interested to watch it all unravel.

A Timeline of Political Deception

The use of hedging and qualifying language in politics to conceal wrongdoing is not new. Santos now joins a list of politicians known for this risky crisis-response strategy:

• Senator John Edwards in 2007 declared, “I’ve been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years, and as anybody who’s been around us knows, she’s an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known. So the story’s just false.”
• Joel Sawyer, communications director for Governor Mark Sanford said in a statement in 2009, “The governor is hiking along the Appalachian Trail. I apologize for taking so long to send this update, and was waiting to see if a more definitive idea of what part of the Trail he was on before we did so.”
• “My system was hacked. I was pranked. It was fairly common you get that,” claimed Congressman Anthony Weiner in 2011.

Santos’ career in politics ended in less than a year, but he manged to pack a lot of wrongdoing into his time in Congress, including these charges and fabrications:

• Wire fraud
• Money laundering
• Lying to Congress (Santos has pleaded not guilty.)
• Claiming to be Jewish and that his grandparents fled the Holocaust.
• Lying about where he went to high school and attending college.
• Inventing parts of his resume including a stint working on Wall Street.
• Accused of fraudently collecting more than $24,000 in Covid unemployment benefits.
• The campaign website said his mother survived the tragic events on September 11th, but “she passed away a few years later when she lost her battle to cancer.”

The Possible Motive Behind George Santos’ Deception

For Santos, it wasn’t just how many lies he told, but why he told them. The variety of deceptions paints Santos as more of a con artist than a politician who stretches the truth for political gain.

This perspective is partially supported in this interview with Piers Morgan where Santos admitted that he “didn’t think” he would get caught. Santos said, “I ran in 2020 for the same exact seat for Congress and I got away with it then.”

It is not uncommon to hear about a politician engaging in deception for financial gain. Yet, Santos’ case is different. Spending $6,000 on luxury items suggests he values couture over his constituents. However, Santos’ problems extend beyond Hermès and Ferragamo. Research shows that some people enjoy the thrill of deception more than what they actually gain from it.

“There is a difference between lying and being a liar. A man may tell a lie unwittingly; but a liar loves to lie, and inhabits in his mind the delight of lying.” – St. Augustine

Understanding the Mindset Behind Dishonesty

The bombshell New York Times
NYT
story that first revealed Santos’ deception suggests he may show signs of pseudologia fantastica, a condition of excessive lying. People with this condition often concoct elaborate stories about their past and present lives. When we combine that condition with the “duping delight,” the pleasure liars get from telling their fibs, we can draw even more conclusions that there may be more psychological reasons behind the deception. According to psychologist Paul Ekman in his book “Telling Lies,” liars can feel a sense of accomplishment or thrill before or during lying. The feeling of fulfillment may motivate people like Santos to lie.

The Truth Behind The Lies

According to the book, “False Allegations,” lying involves two parties: the deceiver and the deceived. In some way, the deceived participate in the lie by not recognizing or believing it. There are four factors that make people susceptible to deception: apathy, ignorance, bias, and overconfidence. These factors may have contributed to Santos’ deceptive practices going unchecked for so long by various groups, including Republican politicians, Democrats, the media, and even voters.

Understanding the Risks and Consequences of Lying

Lies, no matter how small, can permanently damage a reputation. In today’s digital age, it’s almost certain that half-truths, exaggerations, omissions, and even outright lies will be exposed. This is especially true when there are already suspicions.

The truth can be difficult to tell when deception offers an easy escape, but when facing a challenge, Meyer’s Law tells us that the option that is the most difficult will most likely to be the correct one in the end.

Workplace Deception: A Leader’s Guide

Transparency and Honesty are Key: George Santos’ downfall illustrates the importance of transparency and honesty in both private and public sectors. With more public scrutiny and access to information, misrepresentations are easily discovered. This can lead to damaging reputations and distrust from stakeholders.

Understand the Why Behind the Lie: Organizations should recognize signs of lying and understand its psychology to prevent corruption and damage. Leaders who prevent deception at work build a culture of honesty and integrity.

Determine if you are part of the problem: Leaders must create an environment that values critical thinking and skepticism, especially when suspicion exists. To stop misinformation from spreading, create a strong system that finds and deals with it quickly.

The Gist: From Congress to Cameo

It’s inevitable that a lie in the public eye will be be exposed at some point, which is why, after a career in Congress, Santos is now selling video messages for $200 on a celebrity and influencer platform. More alarming, however, is unraveling how Santos managed to sustain his deceit for so long. Ignoring or not investigating lies, whether for power or carelessness, has short-term benefits, but damages trust. Lying has a ripple effect, and the consequences of inaction can be costly.