Sycophancy

I love when people agree with a comment I make or an idea I put forth, it is human nature to find emotional support when someone agrees with you. Unfortunately not all behaviour is honest, and a lot of it has to do with people behaving in an manner that they think you will appreciate. That behaviour could be out of respect, out of perceived or real hierarchy or just because of perceived or real power. 

Thinking about how this behaviour manifests its self leads me to believe that there are three basic behaviours. Let me illustrate first by explaining the root of the word and it’s meaning. The root of sycophancy is supposed to be a conjugate of two Greek words than mean revealing figs, and if you read classical European history it means a revealer of facts around figs (figs were an important cash crop and subject to piracy) sometime during the renaissance the meaning changed in English (in classical French it still means informer) to that we understand today - insincere flatter.  

Let’s look at the three behaviours in the context of the more modern meaning.  

The first - the standard most easy to identify behaviour is that of a classic suck-up. The suck-up generally will agree with who he or she perceives is better/higher or has more power with no questions asked but will in turn behave abusive towards anyone he or she feels is lower / less capable or has less power. We see this in all organisations. These are the bullies. No substance but will throw their self perceived weight around. The important thing is to be able to identify these people and deal with them in an appropriate manner that does not compromise the ethics you hold dear.  These people will suck-up as long as they see some gain or advantage for themselves, there is no other circumstance where they will suck-up. 

The second - the behaviour of a yes man; this is quite different to that of a suck-up. The suck-up knows when to switch lanes and find someone else to suck-up towards. The yes man doesn’t. The yes man will agree no matter what, as long as he or she feels that the person they suck-up to has the key to their destiny. These are the leaches. No substance, no backbone their only single point agenda is to latch on to the coat trails of someone they believe will make it big. Drop them as soon as possible like a ton of hot bricks - a leach sucks blood. I will always be concerned if everyone agrees with me - either I am completely wrong or I am surrounded by yes men; and just by the off chance that I am not wrong but everyone agrees I need to have a deep dive on the why they agree. A yes man will normally not be able to justify their position with clear logic. 

And the third - the behaviour of a self preserver. This is the most difficult to figure out. These are the folks that heap insincere praise on leaders, tend to bully peers and subordinates, all in their quest for personal power and self-preservation. Their modus operandi is venomous and can infect the workplace, and you. 

Ingratiation is always interpersonal: it involves at least two and often three people. The act of ingratiation “can mean one thing to the actor, another to the target of the action, and still another thing to a neutral observer.”  To makes matters worse the sycophant themselves can be unaware of their sycophancy. There are enough stories and great literature where the characters behave like this.  

Then How does one handle sycophancy ? There are only two ways in my opinion. The first Try to remain as detached and emotionless as possible when you interact with them. Make them stick to the facts. And the second refuse to play their obsequious games. Ignore the praise and flattery and keep every interaction with them focused on the issue at hand. 

We all have succumbed to sycophancy at sometime or the other especially the behaviour associated with the self preserver; it happens in corporate and personal life. What we do to course correct is up to us and what we do to stop it from happening is up to us realising the behaviours. 

C