Not too long ago, a corporate leader was summarily removed. I shan’t get into the merits of the decision nor even the less-than-graceful fashion in which it was executed. My puzzlement was with the extent to which the incumbent seemed to have been blindsided by the coup. Even if the prime conspirator kept his intentions secret, how could s/he have possibly missed other signals that a conspiracy was underway? One that at least some of the incumbent’s direct reports knew about or might have even been complicit in. On reflection, I believe the problem lay in trusting people who followed the injunction to "Look like the innocent flower, But be the serpent under it." ¹

Corporate deceivers model themselves on Goneril, Iago or Richard III. Readers may wonder why I choose deceivers from drama as examples rather than the equivalents I have personally encountered. The answer should be obvious: none of Shakespeare’s characters have yet tried to sue me for defamation!

The Psychology of Deception

Before understanding how deception coevolves with language, we first need to know something about the evolution of language. Among several theories explaining why language evolved, I find ones that emphasise its role in facilitating social bonding most satisfying. "Monkeys and apes neutralise the stresses created by living in groups by forming coalitions that buffer their members against harassment. The intensely bonded relationships that underpin these coalitions seem to involve … an emotionally intense mechanism triggered by social grooming." ² Grooming, however, is a time-consuming, one-to-one activity and sets an upper limit to the number of cooperating members in a group. "Language has considerable advantages over grooming as a bonding mechanism because it allows more efficient communication."³

Despite its bonding benefits, language cannot be immune to the evolutionarily advantageous temptation to deceive others by concealing or distorting facts or giving spurious interpretations of the almost invariably incomplete data sets at our disposal. Efficient communication through language is premised on trust and deception is parasitical on that very pre-requisite. Truth-Default Theory (TDT) helps us understand this form of deception. "Humans are a social species, and our individual and collective survival requires coordination, cooperation, and communication (at least within important in-groups). Efficient communication requires a presumption of honesty. If the veracity of all incoming messages need be scrutinized and questioned, communication would lose efficiency and efficacy for coordination. The presumption of honest communication, however, comes at a cost. It makes us vulnerable, at least in the short term, to deception and exploitation. But, at the core of TDT is the view that the tradeoff between efficient communication and vulnerability to occasional deceit is more than worth it. That is, the benefits gained through efficient communication and in-group cooperation vastly outweigh the costs of occasional deception both for the individual and the collective."⁴   In short, deception is an inherent risk of communication. We can, however, identify the kind of people more likely to resort to it in highly damaging ways, as well as those who are prone to get most damaged in the process.

Those who excel at deception are frequently covert-aggressives. According to George Simon Jr, "… covert-aggressives have many unique attributes… They fight for what they want and seek power over others in subtle, cunning and underhanded ways…. Dealing with covert-aggressive personalities is like getting whiplash. Often, you don't really know what's hit you until long after the damage is done. "⁵   These are the major characteristics Simon attributes to covert-aggressives:

• They always want to have their way or to 'win'. 

• They seek power and dominance over others and use an arsenal of subtle but effective tactics that make it more likely that others will go on the defensive, retreat, or concede while simultaneously concealing their aggressive intent.

• They can be deceptively civil, charming and seductive. They know how to 'look good'.

• They can also be unscrupulous, underhanded and vindictive fighters. They know how to capitalize on any weakness of their victims.

• They have impaired consciences. They may know right from wrong but won't let that stand in the way of getting what they want. To them, the ends always justify the means. So, they deceive themselves and others about what they're really doing.

• They view people as pawns in the game (contest) of life. They take advantage of every frailty they find in their 'opponents'. 

Enough about the deceivers. What characterises those who suffer the most from deceivers?

People at dizzying heights have longer distances to fall and that simple fact adds to the damage they suffer and the potential gains from causing their stumble, even if they are no more easily fooled than others. "Making mistakes, even habitually and unknowingly, is central to what it means to be human. [Princely] Characters in Greek tragedies … are no more flawed than the rest of humanity; the difference lies in the scale of their mistakes, which inevitably cost lives and ruin generations."⁶

Two other reasons add to the susceptivity of sovereigns. More often than not, they have few counter-arguers when their 'durbars' see their minds are made up. In addition, some of the easily-deceived occupy their positions because of their parentage or connections and have not honed their deception-perception skills at the lower rungs of the corporate ladder-climb when stakes are lower and falls are shorter. It’s like putting a corporal in charge of an army.

Leaders who fall prey to deception are often also blinkered by their passion. "In almost all we observe a marked one-sidedness, a predisposition in some particular direction; a total incapacity, in certain circumstances, of resisting the force which draws in this direction; a fatal tendency to identify the whole being with one interest, object, passion, or habit of mind. " ⁷

Three Types of Deceivers

Goneril, Iago or Richard III represent distinct types of covert-aggressives. Current historical research refutes Shakespeare’s characterization (especially of Richard III) and Shakespearean scholars are likely to dispute the traits I have emphasized to distinguish the UDP (Unique Deception Proposition) of each. I direct searchers for historical truth and Shakespearean purity to other reading. 

Goneril "… is superior only in a venomous meanness which is almost as hateful as her cruelty. She is the most hideous human being (if she is one) that Shakespeare ever drew." ⁸  Apart from her malignity, Goneril is perhaps the most recognizable figure in the corporate firmament: one who is all milk and honey till s/he is dependent on the mentor but who can be violently vicious once that dependence ends. "Out of the Faustian triad… disloyalty is by far the most morally corrosive." ⁹

"Evil has nowhere else been portrayed with such mastery as in the character of Iago… His thwarted sense of superiority wants satisfaction. What fuller satisfaction could it find than the consciousness that he is the master of the General who has undervalued him and of the rival who has been preferred to him; that these worthy people, who are so successful and popular and stupid, are mere puppets in his hands, but living puppets, who at the motion of his finger must contort themselves in agony, while all the time they believe that he is their one true friend and comforter?... His action is a plot, the intricate plot of a drama, and in the conception and execution of it he experiences the tension and the joy of artistic creation." ¹⁰ Rarer than the Goneril profile, the modern-day Iago, with his sense grievance at being overlooked, the psychopathic indifference to the suffering of others and the creative finesse with which he plots under the cover of an honest-seeming exterior, is not unknown in the corporate world. Leaders far more perceptive and less emotional than Othello can fall prey to him.

Let Richard III explain his own modus operandi:

I do the wrong, and first begin to brawl.

The secret mischiefs that I set abroach

I lay unto the grievous charge of others…

But then I sigh; and, with a piece of Scripture,

Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:

And thus I clothe my naked villany

With odd old ends stol'n forth of Holy Writ;

And seem a saint, when most I play the devil. ¹¹ 

Unlike Iago, (Shakespeare’s, though not history’s) Richard III did not always cover his murderous trail. Of course, when occasion demanded, he could dissimulate well enough to hoodwink even his brother that he was acting on his behalf (while plotting his murder). However, his powers of persuasion were unequalled when he convinced Lady Anne, who detested him for the killing of her husband, that it was done because he loved her ("He that bereft thee, lady, of thy husband, Did it to help thee to a better husband." ¹² ) and then got her to marry him. Admittedly it may be a bit difficult to find quite such viciously villainous corporate actors but it’s useful to set a maximum-depth standard to judge cruel deception.

What Leaders Can Do

I shan’t blame a leader-reader for feeling a bit unnerved at this point. S/he shouldn’t be. An arch-villain fully reaching the perfidy of one of the deceiving trio is an unlikely corporate presence. But that’s not reason enough to relax. Even a paler shade of deception can blight or bury a career. Antidotes to the three frailties described below should, therefore, become part of every leader’s survival kit. 

1. Blind Trust:

"[The] trust that is essential to keep the component cogs of society working together with low friction is well captured by Francis Fukuyama. 'Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community.'  ¹³ "¹⁴   There is, however, a point beyond which trust starts becoming myopic and then sightless. This blindness can apply to people as well as groups.

"…[S]ometimes we're unaware of our biggest vulnerabilities. Manipulators often know us better than we know ourselves. They know what buttons to push, when to do so and how hard to press. Our lack of self-awareness can easily set us up to be exploited." ¹⁵ Had the Duke of Clarence trusted his younger brother less totally he might have survived (according to the play – not history!). ¹⁶  In short, personal trust is like salt: essential for bodily functions, but too much can cause hypertension and poisoning.

Blind trust in groups can be equally pernicious but in another way. If the team feels that overwhelming confidence is placed only in people belonging to a particular family, community, caste, place-of-origin or nationality, they have little interest in protecting a leader who is threatened or revealing the threats to him that they might have uncovered. They might even give a helping hand when push comes to shoving the incumbent out. The Borgia Popes did not hide their Spanish connection. "On the other hand, the Catalans quickly took over almost all the important posts in the papal household: the chief secretary, controller of the household, papal doctors, chief treasurer, even the cook and the like, all soon became Spanish." ¹⁷  Such behaviour doubtless raised the hackles of Italian cardinals, nobility and the general populace. As a result, when "Callixtus III died… the citizens of Rome flooded the streets, chanting with glee against the hated ‘Catalans’, whose hold on the papacy now appeared to be over." ¹⁸ Impartiality has practical benefits.

2. Close-minded Checks:

While leaders do check on what they learn from those they trust, some do so after their minds are fully made up. Consequently, what they then hear only confirms the beliefs they started with. The cure, of course, is to consciously clear preconceptions before examining the person who has been back-bitten as also the biter. 

Othello’s last conversations with Desdemona are classic cases of close-minded interrogation. The outcome was foregone, regardless of what she said. Othello "… is very simple. He is not observant. His nature tends outward. He is quite free from introspection and is not given to reflection. Emotion excites his imagination, but it confuses and dulls his intellect."  ¹⁹ Cool and objective conversations may be difficult under the stress of great emotions. They are best deferred till temperatures are within reasoning range.

Most leaders are excessively confident in their abilities to see through others’ wiles and sift fakers from stalwart supporters. "When people rely on demeanor to infer deception, accuracy is typically poor and slightly better than chance… [I]mproved accuracy rests on attention to contextualized communication content. Most lies are detected either through comparing what is said to what is or what can be known, or through solicitation of a confession." ²⁰   Instead of relying on magical abilities to 'read' people and their body language, a more logical (even lawyer-like) approach is needed to check if a trusted lieutenant is leading one astray. "The key to such detection is asking the right questions… [when] speakers may simply 'default' to confession of truth… Thus, it is not just that the right questions may allow for 'deception detection;' the right questions may trigger confessions." ²¹  The possible damage to the relationship is collateral loss in avoiding a costly error of judgement.

3. Parting with the Crown Jewels:

It is a mark of ultimate trust to retain no hold on power or the means of reviving it after identifying a successor. It is equally epitomizes foolishness to expect any privileges or influence over wielding that power thereafter. Ideally, the power transfer should take place when the incumbent leader departs the corporation (no monkeying around as advisor or emeritus) or the world. 

No prizes for guessing it is Lear who would have avoided pangs 'sharper than a serpent's tooth' had he declared only the plan that he intended to carry out for partitioning his kingdom. The Gonerilization of gifts has too many current examples to need further instantiation.

When neither donation-delay nor distancing are feasible options, an impartial advisor is vital. Sounding out a sycophantic set of subordinates – or worse still, those with agendas of their own – about a potential elimination (or elevation) is like hoping new words will spring out of an echo chamber. The wisest leaders have the confidence and courage to embed a few naysayers among their closest counsellors and to listen to their criticism with even more attention than to the encouragement of the others. One wishes Lear had done so with Kent, who "… is one of the best-loved characters in Shakespeare… [H]e braves Lear's wrath [leading to dismissal and banishment] even more for Lear's sake than Cordelia's." ²² A deputy who brings a leader’s grand dreams down to earth is infinitely more valuable than an unquestioning executor. 

Have my alternative endings spoiled some of Shakespeare’s tragedies for you? I hope not. My attempt has only been to prevent the careers of some of my readers from providing material for a future tragedian.

Notes:

  ¹ William Shakespeare, Macbeth, The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare, 1947.

  ² Robin Dunbar, Human Evolution, Pelican, 2014.

  ³ Robin Dunbar, Human Evolution, Pelican, 2014. 

  ⁴ Timothy R Levine, Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A Theory of Human Deception and Deception Detection, Special Issue on: Advances in Deception Theory, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 2014.

  ⁵ George Simon Jr, In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, Parkhurst Brothers Inc, Revised edition, 2010.

  ⁶ Bryan Doerries, The Theater of War: What Ancient Greek Tragedies Can Teach Us Today, Knopf, 2015.

 ⁷   A C Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Macmillan and Co, 2019.

  ⁸ A C Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Macmillan and Co, 2019.

  ⁹ Visty Banaji, The Faustian Triad, Angry Birds, Angrier Bees – Reflections on the Feats, Failures and Future of HR, Pages 451-457, AuthorsUpfront, 2023.

  ¹⁰ A C Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Macmillan and Co, 2019.

  ¹¹ William Shakespeare, Richard III, The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare, 1954.

  ¹² William Shakespeare, Richard III, The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare, 1954.

  ¹³ Francis Fukuyama, Trust, Simon & Schuster, 1996.

  ¹⁴ Visty Banaji, That's What Friends Are For, People Matters, 10 February 2025, (https://www.peoplematters.in/article/employee-engagement/thats-what-friends-are-for-44310).

  ¹⁵ George Simon Jr, In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, Parkhurst Brothers Inc, Revised edition, 2010. 

  ¹⁶ John Ashdown-Hill, The Third Plantagenet: George, Duke of Clarence, Richard III's Brother, The History Press Ltd, 2015.

  ¹⁷ Paul Strathern, The Borgias, Pegasus Books, 2019. 

  ¹⁸ Paul Strathern, The Borgias, Pegasus Books, 2019.

  ¹⁹ A C Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Macmillan and Co, 2019.

  ²⁰ Timothy R Levine, Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A Theory of Human Deception and Deception Detection, Special Issue on: Advances in Deception Theory, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 2014.

  ²¹ Steven A McCornack, Kelly Morrison, Jihyun Esther Paik, Amy M. Wisner, and Xun Zhu, Information Manipulation Theory: A Propositional Theory of Deceptive Discourse Production, Special Issue on: Advances in Deception Theory, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 2014.

²² A C Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Macmillan and Co, 2019.