Lies and Bullshit: A practical guide to navigating the half-truths that shape your career

Do you tell little lies at work?  You know the kind – those that protect someone’s feelings or protect your own time and energy?  For example, those times when someone asks you whether they should apply for a specific role.  Your real view is that they wouldn’t stand a chance - though you actually say “Why not?  You’d be great at it”. 

Did you know there is a word for the study of this behaviour?    It’s mendaciology from the Latin Mendacium: ‘lie,’ ‘untruth’.  I learnt this from the research of Johan Alvehus who has written a lovely paper with the title "Sweet little lies? Towards a mendaciology of leadership".  If you want to read it, it’s available as Open Access. 

Alvehus’s contention is that being able to tell lies and practice other deceptions, including bullshitting, are essential skills for successful leadership.  So much so that I am wondering whether there is any mileage in offering a new Women-Space programme on how to be a successful liar!  Whilst I ponder on that , it is true that being able to recognise when information is being managed, softened, or strategically presented is an essential survival skill.

So, here is a short version of what Alvehus’s paper tells us with suggestions on how you can navigate all that lying in university life. 

Recognising the Little Lies

Some untruths in university life are essentially social lubricants, told with good intentions. Learning to spot these can actually help you respond more appropriately.

Job rejection feedback is a classic example. When you receive vague explanations like "very strong field of candidates" or "we've decided to go in a different direction," these are almost always prosocial lies designed to soften disappointment. The real reasons – budget cuts, internal politics, someone's preferred candidate – don’t make it into official communications.

How to navigate this: Don't take generic feedback at face value or spend energy trying to decode what you did wrong. If you genuinely want developmental feedback, ask trusted contacts who might give you the unofficial version. Otherwise, accept it as the polite fiction it is and move on.

Workload conversations are another common area of white lies – or indeed big fat ones. When your line manager or head of department says "I know everyone is busy, but..." or asks if you "might have capacity for" something, they're often not actually asking. The implied expectation is that you'll say yes.

If you are asked to take on an additional project “because it will help your career” please don’t believe this is a truth.  This extra work may well do that.  But there are no guarantees.

How to navigate this:  Consider what the consequences of declining might be for your reputation as a “good and valued colleague” and relationship with the person who is asking.  It might be you have to say “yes” even though it will cost you dear in extra work.  If you decide your response is a “no”, you can soften this by saying “So sorry I can’t do this at the moment but I’m happy to pick up extra stuff another time”.  But if this work is likely to give your career a boost – for example it extends your visibility to new groups of staff or to those higher up or if it gives you greater skills and insight – then do consider saying “yes” even though it is additional work.  Often we don’t get asked twice and if the opportunity is genuine you have to take it when it comes.   

Decoding Strategic Communication

I used to spend quite a time googling which universities were saying that they “changed lives” or were “global”.  It was always rather depressing to discover how many did because once upon a time I did genuinely believe that the work we were doing in any university I worked in was unique to us.

Strategic plans and mission statements are often masterclasses in saying nothing specific. Phrases like "excellence in research and teaching," "world-leading," or "student-centred approach" are so generic they're essentially meaningless. When documents can apply to almost any institution, they really don't tell you much about actual priorities. 

How to navigate this: Look at where resources actually go, not what documents say. Which departments are hiring? What gets funded? Who gets promoted? Actions reveal priorities far more reliably than mission statements.

Committee language requires its own translation guide. "Let's take this offline" often means "I don't want to discuss this publicly." Though, it could also mean that the discussion will take hours and hours and we have already been in this meeting far too long already.

"We need to be mindful of sensitivities" might mean "someone powerful disagrees." "This aligns with our strategic priorities" can translate to "this is politically expedient right now."

How to navigate this: Pay attention to what doesn't get said. When concerns are deflected rather than addressed, or when discussion moves quickly past contentious points, note what's being avoided. The silences often tell you more than the words.

Spotting Political Manoeuvring

Some deception in universities is more strategic – not malicious necessarily – but definitely calculated.  Although frankly there is quite a bit of malicious behaviour in universities as well as my hard knocks experience tells me.  But that’s another story.  

Recognising these patterns helps you understand power dynamics.

Watch for selective information sharing. When someone consistently shares information that benefits their position while omitting complicating details, they're engaged in strategic truth-telling. This isn't always lying outright, but it's certainly manipulation through omission.

How to navigate this: Actively seek multiple perspectives before making judgments. If you're only hearing one side of a story – especially if it paints someone in an exceptionally good or bad light – assume there's more to it. Ask questions of different people before forming conclusions.

Notice impression management. People who are politically astute often work hard to appear authentic, collaborative, and selfless while carefully advancing their own agendas. Alvehus’s research suggests successful organizational politicians are skilled at seeming "genuine and clean" while being strategic behind the scenes. 

How to navigate this: This is tricky because being strategic isn't inherently wrong. Look for patterns over time. Does someone's public positioning consistently benefit them? Do they take credit while deflecting blame? Actions over time reveal more than individual performances.

Recognise coalition-building disguised as consultation. Sometimes what's presented as "seeking input" is actually about building support for a predetermined decision. If you notice the same people being consulted, similar talking points emerging, and your actual feedback seeming to disappear into the void, you're probably watching political groundwork being laid. 

How to navigate this: Understand the distinction between genuine consultation and political theatre. If you want to influence outcomes, engage early when decisions are actually being shaped. Once formal consultation begins, it's often too late to change direction.

The Collective Fictions We Maintain

Perhaps the most important skill is recognising what Alvehus calls "functional denialism" – the lies we collectively maintain to keep the system working.

For example, we act as if hiring and promotion are purely merit-based, when networks and politics clearly play significant roles. We pretend transparent processes guarantee fair outcomes, even when we've seen them fail. We maintain that speaking up is valued, whilst we see people get punished for it.

How to navigate this: Understanding that these collective fictions exist doesn't mean you should constantly call them out – sadly that's usually counterproductive. Instead, use this awareness to make informed choices. Know when you're working within the official story and when you need to understand the unofficial reality. Recognise which battles are worth fighting and which fictions are best left unchallenged.

Practical Strategies for Self-Protection

Triangulate information. When something important is at stake, never rely on a single source. Talk to people at different levels and in different roles. The administrator, the early-career colleague, and the senior professor will all have different perspectives and information access.

Document important conversations. When decisions affect you significantly, follow up verbal conversations with email summaries. This creates a record and often prompts people to be more careful.

Build your own networks. Having trusted colleagues who will give you honest perspectives and share unofficial information is invaluable. These relationships take time to develop but are essential for navigating institutional politics.

Trust your instincts. If something feels off – if explanations don't quite add up or someone's words don't match their actions – pay attention to that discomfort. You're probably picking up on inconsistencies worth noting.

Know when to play along. Sometimes the strategic move is to participate in the polite fictions, especially when calling them out would cost you more than it's worth. This isn't about compromising your integrity; it's about choosing your battles wisely.

Maintaining Your Own Integrity

The goal isn't to become cynical or to adopt manipulative practices yourself. Rather, it's to develop sophisticated literacy in how institutions actually work, so you can navigate them more effectively while staying true to your own values.

You'll have to make your own choices about which small untruths you're comfortable with – the "I have another meeting" to protect writing time, the softened feedback to avoid unnecessary conflict. Most of us engage in some level of strategic communication to function in organizational life.

The key is being conscious about these choices. Understanding the landscape of lies and half-truths in university politics gives you agency – you can decide when to challenge, when to work around, and when to simply protect yourself by knowing what's really going on beneath the official story.

Because once you can read between the lines, you're much better equipped to write your own path through the institution.

Reflections inspired by and with great thanks to Johan Alvehus's "Sweet little lies? Towards a mendaciology of leadership"

Professor Christina Hughes is Founder and CEO of Women-Space Leadership. Our purpose is to support women who work in universities to flourish at work.