Identifying the components of charlatan behavior in the public sector (phenomenological study)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Candidate of Public Administration, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative sciences, Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad (FUM)

3 Associate Prof, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

4 Prof, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Objective: One of the most common unethical behaviors is charlatan behavior. Considering its negative consequences in the public sector, this study was conducted with the aim of identifying the components of this behavior.
Methods: The research philosophy is an interpretation that was done with a qualitative approach and through the phenomenological strategy. This research was conducted within the territory of government organizations in South Khorasan in 2024. The data was collected based on the lived experience of 16 employees and managers of this sector, who were selected in a purposeful way, through semi-structured interviews, And then, it was analyzed using MAXQDA and Colaizzi's method.
Results: This behavior can be conceptualized in the form of four components, fifteen sub-components and thirty-four main themes, including: the false-trust building (pretending to be an expert, pretending to be committed, pretending to obey the law, pretending to be religious, superficial imitation), conscious distortion of reality (prioritizing individual interests, not considering the needs organization's reality, non-transparency, false performance), deception and false-persuasion (abuse of emotions, exaggeration of capabilities and performance, performing various unethical behaviors), stabilizing a false-positive image (getting the approval of superiors in any way, an extreme desire to form support groups, an extreme desire to gain power through communication with powerful people).
Conclusions: Considering its context-oriented nature, this research led to identifying new angles for charlatan behavior in the public sector. Accurate identification of these components helps government managers to take effective steps to prevent and reduce the consequences of this behavior in government environments.

Keywords

References

منابع فارسی:
1- دعایی، حبیب‌الله؛ اسلامی، قاسم؛ و غلامی، محمد. (۱۴۰۰). بررسی تأثیر شایعه‌پراکنی و سخن‌چینی در سازمان‌های بخش دولتی بر نگرش‌های شغلی و عملکرد کاری کارکنان از طریق بدانگارپنداری سازمانی. پژوهش‌نامه مدیریت تحول، 13(1)، 55-84.
2- شول، حسین؛ دامغانیان، حسین؛ رستگار، عباسعلی؛ دانایی‌فرد، حسن؛ و آذر، عادل. (۱۳۹۸). پیشایندها و پسایندهای زیرآب‌زنی سازمانی در سازمان‌های دولتی: پژوهشی کیفی. مطالعات رفتار سازمانی، 8(3)، 39- 74.
3- علوی‌نیا، سید مهدی. (۱۳۹۷). شارلاتان‌ها (مروری بر تشخیص و درمان توسعه‌‌نیافتگی). تهران: آوای قلم.
4- فراستخواه، مقصود. (۱۴۰۱). کتاب ما ایرانیان، زمینه کاوی تاریخی و اجتماعی خلقیات ایرانی (ویرایش 2). تهران: نشر نی.
5- هولمز، ‏‫رابرت ا‏ل. (۱۴۰۱). مبانی فلسفه اخلاق. (مسعود علیا، مترجم). تهران: ققنوس.
References:
1. Abbasi, A.; & Wan Ismail, W. K. (2023). Linking organizational citizenship behavior and organizational trust towards reducing workplace deviance behavior in higher education. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2157538. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2157538.
2. Abraham, J.; & Berline, R. P. N. (2015). An Investigation on Organizational Charlatan Behaviour and Moral Identity as Predictors of Shame: Importance for Education. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 9(2), 135-144.
3. Alkraiji, A.; & Ameen, N. (2022). The impact of service quality, trust and satisfaction on young citizen loyalty towards government e-services. Information Technology & People, 35(4), 1239-1270. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2020-0229
4. Al-Shatti, E.; & Ohana, M. (2021). Impression Management and Career Related Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701694
5. Balogun, A. (2024). Exploring the Role of Equity Sensitivity in the Relation between Perceived Injustice and Corrupt Tendencies among Nigeria Police. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 39(3), 586-597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-023-09626-x
6. Basri, S. A.; Marsam, A. D.; Majid, R. A.; Abu, N. A.; & Mohamed, N. (2017). Reinforcement Tool of Whistleblowing to Eradicate Fraud in Public Sector. (M. Y. Jaaffar, A. Abdullah Sani, & A. Muhammad, eds.), SHS Web of Conferences, 36, 38.  EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173600038.
7. Casonato, F.; Farneti, F.; & Dumay, J. (2019). Social capital and integrated reporting: Losing legitimacy when reporting talk is not supported by actions. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(1), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2018-0132
8. Dadaboyev, S. M. U.; & Baek, Y. (2022). Organizational misbehaviors: construct review and hierarchical reflective model. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 20(4), 310-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-01-2022-1266
9. De Francesco, G.; & Beard, M. (1939). The Power of the Charlatan. Yale University Press.
10. Didenko, N. I.; Romashkina, G. F.; Skripnuk, D. F.; & Kulik, S. V. (2020). Dynamics of Trust in Institutions, the Legitimacy of the Social Order, and Social Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040111
11. Doaei, H. A.; Eslami, G.; & Gholami, M. (2021). Investigating the Impact of Organizational Rumor and Gossip on Employees’ Job attitudes and Performance through Organizational Cynicism in the Public Sector. Transformation Management Journal, 13(spring & summer 2021), 55-84. https://doi.org/10.22067/pmt.v12i1.86295 (In Persian)
12. Ergun, H. (2021). The Effect of Mushroom Manager Behavior on Organizational Charlatan and Organizational Loneliness. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(2), 359-378. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v8i2.481.
13. Fox, S.; & Spector, P. E. (Eds.). (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: investigations of actors and targets (1st Ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-000.
14. Gbadamosi, G.; Ndaba, J.; & Oni, F. (2007). Predicting charlatan behaviour in a non‐Western setting: lack of trust or absence of commitment? Journal of Management Development, 26(8), 753-769. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710777264.
15. Griffin, R. W.; OLearyKelly, A.; & Collins, J. M. (1998). Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior. Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
16. Haldorai, K.; Kim, W. G.; Chang, H.; & Li, J. (2020). Workplace spirituality as a mediator between ethical climate and workplace deviant behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 86, 102372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102372.
17. Heine, S.J.; Kitayama, S.; & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural Differences in Self-Evaluation: Japanese Readily Accept Negative Self-Relevant Information. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 434-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032004004.
18. Hermanson, D. R. (2021). Fraud and Governance: The Importance of People. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 6(1), 313-334. https://doi.org/10.2308/JFAR-2020-015.
19. Ifeanyichukwu, E. C.; Obinna, I. O.; Omeje, O.; Okonkwo, E.; Ikechukwu, A.; & Okoro, C. M. (2022). Organisational justice and workplace deviance behaviour among bank workers in Nigeria: the role of perceived organisational support as a moderator. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 32(6), 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2022.2121463.
20. Jelinek, R.; & Ahearne, M. (2006). The ABC’s of ACB: Unveiling a clear and present danger in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 457-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.04.003.
21. Johnson, G.; Griffith, J. A.; & Buckley, M. R. (2016). A new model of impression management: Emotions in the “black box” of organizational persuasion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(1), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12112.
22. Klotz, A. C.; He, W.; Yam, K. C.; Bolino, M. C.; Wei, W.; & Houston III, L. (2018). Good actors but bad apples: Deviant consequences of daily impression management at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1145-1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000335.
23. KrambiaKapardis, M. (2016). Financial Crisis, Fraud, and Corruption. In Corporate Fraud and Corruption (pp. 5-38). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137406439_2.
24. Lapuente, V.; & Van de Walle, S. (2020). The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance, 33(3), 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12502.
25. Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305.
26. Levashina, J.; & Campion, M. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1638-1656. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638.
27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage. Beverly Hills, CA.
28.Liu, Z.; & Liu, Q. (2024). Does Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Ambivalence Influence Employees’ Constructive Deviance? Behavioral Sciences, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010070.
29. Malone, P.; & Hayes, J. (2012). Backstabbing in Organizations: Employees’ Perceptions of Incidents, Motives, and Communicative Responses. Communication Studies, 63(2), 194-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.635552.
30. Narayanan, J.; Ronson, S.; & Pillutla, M. M. (2006). Groups as Enablers of Unethical Behavior: The Role of Cohesion on Group Member Actions. In Research on Managing Groups and Teams (Vol. 8, pp. 127-147). Bingley: Emerald (MCB UP). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856 (06)08007-8.
31. Parnell, J. A.; & Singer, M. G. (2001). The organizational charlatan scale developing an instrument to measure false performance. Journal of Management Development, 20(5), 441-455. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110395426.
32. Rauh, J. (2020). Unethical Behavior’s Moderating Effect on Managerial and Organizational Outcomes: Evidence from Public Hospitals. Public Integrity, 22(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1479933.
33. Robinson, S. L.; & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behav-iors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.5465/256693.
34. Rosenfeld, P.; Edwards, J. E.; & Thomas, M. D. (2015). Impression Management. In C. L. Cooper (ed.), (C. L. Cooper, ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Management (pp. 1-2). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom110164.
35. Salminen, A.; & IkolaNorrbacka, R. (2010). Trust, good governance and unethical actions in Finnish public administration. (A. Lawton, ed.), International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(7), 647-668. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011078905.
36. Shool, H.; Damghanian, H.; Rastgar, A.; Danaee fard, H.; & Azar, A. (2019). The Causes and Consequences of Backstabbing in the Public Organizations: A Qualitative Research. Organizational Behaviour Studies Quarterly, 8(3), 39-74. https://dorl.net/20.1001.1.23221518.1398.8.3.2.7 (In Persian).
37. Tammany, J. E.; OConnell, J. K.; Allen, B. S.; & Brismee, J. M. (2019). Are Productivity Goals in Rehabilitation Practice Associated With Unethical Behaviors? Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation, 1(1-2), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2019.100002.
38. Van de Walle, S.; & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public Service Performance and Trust in Government: The Problem of Causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891-913. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019352.
39. Vermeir, K. (2020). Charlatan epistemology: As illustrated by a study of wonder-working in the late seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. Science in Context, 33(4), 363-384. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889721000193.
Governance and Development
Volume 5, Issue 3
September 2025
Pages 67-99

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics