Handling duplicity

To demonstrate dishonesty is to lead someone to believe something that we know is false. Most of us know how to use this technique to extract ourselves from delicate situations. But not all dishonesty is the same, and in some cases more than others it upsets us by calling into question our trust in the relationship, in the other.

In numerous cases, faced with what we perceive to be a lie, there's no use in trying to get the other to "confess". It is rather a matter of deciding and then announcing the actions to be taken henceforth so as not to suffer from it.
Try to find common ground
When two "truths" are in conflict, it is helpful first to seek that on which we can agree. So asking questions to understand the other's "point of departure". Before speaking of bad faith, you must be sure that there's not simply a misunderstanding or an error of judgement.
Assume good intentions
A simple and very useful rule: concede to the other the assumption of good intentions and signal this clearly to him ("you want things to move forward as much as I do...") Even if he is concealing information, this is not necessarily in order to do us harm, or from blatant dishonesty.
Announce how we will adapt
If you do not, through dialogue, find common ground, then persevering will be counter-productive. More effective:
1- identify how you will act to lessen (or eliminate) the consequences the other's behavior has for you
2- announce it calmly, like you would declare a logical decision.
We do not seek to change the other but to change something on our part which will, perhaps, cause the situation to evolve.
Each question has only one correct response, but be careful: among the possible responses there is one that is "almost correct" and might make the choice harder!
1 / 3   Bring it up or not?
You know that your co-worker is demonstrating bad faith. Is it better to tell him clearly that you see this?
Right, it will probably be ineffective and may prompt additional arguments to prove that he's telling the truth.
You risk aggravating the situation. It's better to ask your co-worker questions to back him into a corner or simply to show that you do not accept his position.
It depends.
A priori no, it is generally more effective to take a less frontal approach.
2 / 3   Reminders...
Nathan does not acknowledge that you must frequently send him reminders in order to get responses to your requests. What do you say to him?
But I can give you plenty of examples: last week, I had to remind you that...
You are right but Nathan will probably reply "yes, but in that case it was because..." His justifications will not add much to the discussion.
So we do not share the same view of the situation. What I will do from now on, when I need to send you a reminder, is to alert you so that we can agree on what's happening.
Yes, rather than losing time arguing you create the conditions to make the observation shared and objective.
Oh come on, you certainly do realize that I'm constantly sending you reminders!
It's not clear that your irritation will modify Nathan's view.
3 / 3   A promise not kept?
Maxence says to you, "You promised me a bonus. I'm getting nothing for what I've done." You had merely told him that you would present the request to HR. How do you respond?
But I only told you that I would ask for one!
You take a defensive position, following Maxence's lead.
I shouldn't have mentioned it before it was certain.
This is true, but the realization comes too late.
Do you think that I didn't follow through on making the request to HR and that I lied to you?
Yes, you reformulate your commitment, formulate the implicit message and encourage Maxence to expand on what he has to say.
Are you only in this for the money?
This is not the right moment for a discussion about Maxence's motivations.
Your score is
You finished!
To review the questions and responses, please choose from the list below.