logo
The risks of having 'yes men' in a business

The risks of having 'yes men' in a business

RTÉ News​4 days ago

Analysis: Sycophantic behaviour in the workplace has been found to reduce respect and morale and lead to lower productivity
Since the start of his second term in office, US president Donald Trump has cultivated a political atmosphere that discourages freedom of thought. He also actively villainises and punishes any dissenting opinion. Worryingly, this atmosphere looks like it is spreading across other democracies.
Commentators have described Trump as both narcissistic and authoritarian. Yet, running parallel to these factors, one character trait is glaringly common among Trump supporters: sycophancy. You just have to examine the pre-election rhetoric of Trump loyalists. One backer, Stephen Miller, declared him "the most stylish president ... in our lifetimes". Miller is now deputy White House chief of staff.
From RTÉ Radio 1's The Business, why flattery gets you everywhere
South Dakota governor Kristi Noem gifted Trump a four-foot Mount Rushmore replica, with Trump's face added alongside the original four presidents. Noem, who is now secretary of homeland security, epitomises the elevation of loyal sycophants over those with arguably better credentials.
Research has examined the dangers of sycophantic behaviour in the workplace, finding it reduces peer respect and morale, and leads to dissonance and lower productivity. Other research has shown that someone who chooses to employ these tactics can enjoy improved promotion prospects, rewards such as the first refusal on business trips, easier access to company resources and a higher salary compared to their peers.
But studies have also shown sycophants often suffer emotional exhaustion from the dual stresses of manipulation and responsibility. Ongoing research by the author on workplace sycophancy reveals similar patterns. Interviews, spanning from junior staff to CEOs, show reduced motivation, falling team morale and declining respect for sycophants.
From RTÉ Brainstorm, my boss is a psychopath - why bad people get good jobs
One participant highlighted the effect on teamwork that sycophantic behaviour can have within the workplace.
Sycophancy means raising yourself in somebody's esteem, at the expense of somebody else, on the ladder. And so... it's going to impact upon on the ability to be part of a team.
Another participant offered a comparison to a different deviant workplace behaviour – intimidation.
I'd say that sycophantic behaviour is coming into the same category as bullying. And it's hard sometimes, especially with bullying and sycophantic behaviour, you are dealing with a lot of people that are manipulative, and manipulating people are quite charismatic. And when you're charismatic, you're more believable because you're a storyteller.
One solution that emerges from the research is workforce education – teaching employees to recognise and mitigate a culture of ingratiation.
As an employee, many people might find it difficult not to bow to peer pressure. If the senior colleague encourages and rewards those who suck up, how do other colleagues, who do not choose to utilise such tactics, compete?
Dangerous ideas take root
Another factor to consider is the tendency for some workers to "kiss up and kick down". What this means is that staff who are lower down the hierarchical ladder suffer detrimental treatment from the colleagues who are trying to suck their way up the same ladder.
From RTÉ Radio 1's The Business, everything we need to know about power dynamics in the workplace
If workforces were educated on what these tactics looked and felt like, perhaps included in corporate codes of conduct, HR departments and management could identify potential issues and deal with them.
But this is not merely an HR concern. Previous research also shows a link between ingratiation, high turnover rates and poorer performance by the organisation as a whole.
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of sycophancy is the push for conformity when it comes to opinions. If leadership hears nothing but agreement, dangerous ideas can be reinforced. Things like the leader's own skills or the competence of the organisation as a whole can become wildly exaggerated – with disastrous consequences.
When leaders are surrounded by "yes-men", they're deprived of critical input that could challenge assumptions or highlight potential flaws. This can lead to cognitive entrenchment where decision-makers become overconfident and resistant to change. Bad decisions then proceed unchecked, often escalating into systemic failures.
From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, how to say no at work
In return, this can lead to groupthink, a phenomenon where a desire for harmony overrides rational evaluation. Environments that suffer from groupthink often ignore red flags, silence whistleblowers and overvalue consensus. All of these things are damaging to an organisation's ability to remain agile and competitive.
Which brings us back to Trump. In his case this isn't a corporate crisis. It's a geopolitical one. At stake is not shareholder value but national security and global stability.
With sycophants backing poor decisions, the risk ranges from damaged diplomacy to outright conflict. If loyalty replaces truth, the cost could be catastrophic. Trump's regime may ultimately collapse under the weight of its own delusions – but the collateral damage could be profound.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What Trump is doing to US universities is not as bad as the McCarthyite witch trials – it's worse
What Trump is doing to US universities is not as bad as the McCarthyite witch trials – it's worse

Irish Times

timean hour ago

  • Irish Times

What Trump is doing to US universities is not as bad as the McCarthyite witch trials – it's worse

Some have said the current assault on American universities is the worst since the McCarthyite purges of the 1940s and 1950s. It's actually much worse. McCarthyism targeted individuals with 'Communistic' beliefs, which could include anything left of centre. Donald Trump similarly seeks to stamp out dissent. But his attack is McCarthyism on steroids, attempting to destroy universities as institutions. Trump began by threatening to withhold federal funding from universities that refused his demands. The US spends roughly $60 billion a year on university-based research and development, about half the size of the total Irish governmental budget. Because these funds have already been appropriated by the US Congress, withholding them is illegal. Yet Trump is doing it anyway and daring the courts to stop him. In March, Columbia University, fearful of losing $400 million in federal funding, caved to Trump's demands including surrendering control over its Middle Eastern studies programme. In April, Harvard fought back and has had nearly $2 billion pulled. These funds support all manner of research, and their suspension will have devastating effects on scientific progress, the benefits of which would have been felt far beyond the American borders. Just to take one example, say you or a relative develop Alzheimer's disease: these cuts will delay the search for treatments. More recently, Trump escalated his attack on another key source of university revenue: international students, who make up more than 20 per cent of the student body at most American research universities. Across the country, immigration officers have disappeared international students involved in anti-Israel protests. A haunting video showed one woman, Rumeysa Ozturk, walking near campus, pulled into an unmarked car in broad daylight by masked, plainclothes officers. In some cases, the government has provided no information as to the whereabouts of these students or information as to why they were detained. READ MORE [ CCTV footage shows US immigration detaining college student Rumeysa Ozturk Opens in new window ] International students seeking to re-enter the US have been detained at the border; like undocumented migrants, these students with the legal right to study in the country fear going home in case they are not allowed to travel back. Now, Trump has revoked Harvard's certification for enrolling international students , leaving nearly 7,000 in limbo. And last week, the State Department paused appointments for international student visas , which affects any non-citizen wishing to study at any US university. These actions will permanently damage American higher education – not simply Harvard or Columbia, which are just the most prominent examples. All American universities are potentially in the firing line. The New York Times reported last week that a Trump administration taskforce had identified 10 universities for particular attention. They include George Washington University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California. Many measures may be blocked in the courts; indeed, a judge has already prevented him from blocking Harvard's enrolment of international students. Regardless, the measures have created so much uncertainty that no international student can feel good about studying in the US. Who would want to bet their future education on the chance that American courts will restrain Trump? And even if a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, any student considering a multiyear degree in the US will have to factor in the possibility of a future republican victory. [ Judge blocks Trump administration's ban on international student enrolments at Harvard Opens in new window ] To be sure, universities made themselves vulnerable to attack. By cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, many gave Trump an entering wedge. Now 'fighting anti-Semitism' is the flimsy pretext of his current assault. Private universities, in particular, are elitist institutions. The annual cost of a Harvard bachelor's degree is just over $90,000 for next year, though many students – including international students – benefit from need-based financial aid. Because most US universities, including public ones, depend on private gifts to balance their books, they focus on pleasing big donors. They kowtow not just to the rich, but to the ultra-rich. [ Donald Trump's chilling assault on universities mirrors that of the Nazis in 1930s Germany Opens in new window ] Trump retains a lot of political support for anti-elitist attacks on academia among voters without third-level education who have trended republican. The Maga movement loves hierarchies based on wealth, nationality, race, and gender. But it hates the kind of hierarchies that US universities supply: ones based on merit and thereby more open to women and people of colour. Trump's arch nemesis, Barack Obama, demonstrates how a black man could rise to the presidency through academic institutions: Columbia, Harvard Law, and a professorship at the University of Chicago. As imperfect as US universities are, they remain vital institutions of free speech, which is precisely why Trump is attacking them. His attacks have had a chilling effect on college campuses. Some, such as Columbia, have been internally riven over how to respond. Academics and students are demoralised. Many are fighting back, but they are forced to redirect their energy away from studying, teaching, and researching. Three leading scholars of fascism – Marci Shore, Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder – made headlines by leaving Yale for the University of Toronto. Needless to say, it is a disturbing sign for American democracy when those who know the most about fascism's rise start to flee. Destroying higher education is a strange way of making America great again. US universities have been not just engines of economic growth, they have been tremendous sources of soft power. According to one count, more than 50 current world leaders were educated in the US. Like other aspects of Trump's radical agenda such as his imposition of tariffs, his attack on universities in the name of America First is rapidly accelerating the decline of his country's geopolitical power. But Trump's attack on academia presents Ireland with a unique opportunity . Just think how desirable it is for researchers and students to come here to an English-speaking country that is a functioning democracy. Minister for Education James Lawless recently announced a scheme for attracting disaffected American academics. Yet it is unclear whether it will be of the necessary scale and ambition to truly benefit from the US brain drain. Such a scheme, if successful, would enable Ireland not only to be a refuge for academic freedom and democracy, it would generate long-term economic growth through science and innovation. But the scheme shouldn't be too narrowly focused on the hard sciences. After all, we need artists, humanists, and social scientists – and perhaps some scholars of fascism – to help us understand the madness that is Trump's America. Dr Daniel Geary is Mark Pigott Professor in US History at Trinity College Dublin

Forget hope. Be a hopeful pessimist instead
Forget hope. Be a hopeful pessimist instead

Irish Times

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Forget hope. Be a hopeful pessimist instead

Pope Francis was a nice fella, but was he wrong about hope? Diagnosing the problems of the modern world, he argued that what we need more than anything today is belief in a better future. Yet many of the worst actors globally are infused with overconfidence, or excessive optimism. Hope itself appears to have become an impediment to tackling urgent challenges. Action on climate change is weakened by a general hope technology will come to the rescue. European defence against Russia is undermined by a hazy belief Vladimir Putin will metamorphose into a peacemaker. Dealing with Ireland's housing crisis is crippled by a faith in the same old policies. I've lost track of the number of people who said in the wake of Donald Trump's election as US president 'ah, sure, he mightn't be so bad'. And then there's the irrational exuberance surrounding artificial intelligence , with governments now tending to see the glass as half full regarding this potentially cataclysmic technology. Not for nothing is the biography of OpenAI boss Sam Altman called The Optimist. Philosophers have long discussed the paradoxical nature of hope. READ MORE 'Only one thing is more stupid than absolute pessimism and that is absolute optimism,' said Albert Camus. His thinking on the matter was informed by a conundrum that also troubled Pope Francis: Why are people so indifferent to the suffering of others? Francis described indifference as 'the opposite of love', and believed it was a much more common evil in human affairs than hate. Camus, who was active in the French resistance against the Nazis, was also deeply troubled by political apathy and saw it as essentially anti-love. Modern man 'fornicated and read the papers', Camus wrote in a damning assessment of our unmotivated condition. Francis saw hope as the answer to indifference. 'It is often said that 'so long as there is life, there is hope', but the truth, if anything, is the opposite: it is hope that keeps life going, protects it, takes care of it, helps it to grow,' he wrote. Camus was more ambivalent about optimism, and argued pessimism could be a more powerful force against inertia, what he called 'man's strongest temptation'. He was particularly wary of ideological hope in 'some great idea' – be it religious or secular – that deflected us from reality. 'We find in his [Camus's] pessimism a clearsightedness that cuts through all the subterfuges and evasions available in his time to the beating core of his activism: that we must do what must be done, for reasons of justice and solidarity – because we owe it to our fellow human beings to prevent their suffering as best we can ... Camus proposes a fierce philosophy of action that is as bold as it is stark, stripped from any confidence of victory,' philosopher Mara Van der Lugt writes in a new book, Hopeful Pessimism. [ Don't dismiss Peig Sayers. Her stoic folk wisdom has plenty to offer today Opens in new window ] Camus's wariness of hope seems well founded when considering the utopian thinking of today's tech moguls. Elon Musk , the world's richest man, dreams of occupying Mars and re-engineering democracy. And to achieve this goal, we need less – not more – concern for the suffering of our fellow human beings. 'The fundamental weakness of western civilisation is empathy. The empathy exploit. They're exploiting a bug in western civilisation, which is the empathy response,' the multi-billionaire whined on the Joe Rogan podcast earlier this year. For utopians like Musk, human solidarity interferes with grand visions. So what is the right approach to hope? One way of resolving the conundrum is by definitions. Hope can be defined as either positive thinking or constructive thinking. One is more passive than the other. Optimism can be defined as a belief in a positive outcome. It has a faith element, and potentially carries higher risks and rewards. Studies show optimists live longer but are also more likely to take risks. 'The evidence suggests that optimism is widespread, stubborn and costly,' the psychologist Daniel Kahneman said. He had in mind particularly the optimism around public projects, and how spending estimates on infrastructure were always pitched towards the most hopeful end of the spectrum. Hello National Children's Hospital . Then there is utopianism, which can be defined as an ideological attachment to progress or some idealised future. [ Could there be good reason to believe in life after death? Opens in new window ] So defined, it's always good to have some hope. Treat optimism with caution and be very wary of utopianism. Van der Lugt resolves the matter in a different way, saying we should strive to become 'hopeful pessimists'. This aims to take the best of what optimism and pessimism both have to offer. It has the advantage of drawing us away from self-centred hope, and towards the responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings and the wider world. 'If anything, the pessimists have taught me this: with eyes full of that darkness there can still be this strange shattering openness, like a door cracked open, for the good to make its entry into life. Since all things are uncertain, so too is the future, and so there is always the possibility of change for better as there is for worse,' writes Van der Lugt. An exclusive focus on hope can lead us towards passivity and indifference. Better that we are hopeful pessimists who, as Van der Lugt puts it, 'strive for change without certainties, without expecting anything from our efforts other than the knowledge that we have done what we are called upon to do as moral agents in a time of change'.

China 'firmly rejects' US claim that it violated tariff deal
China 'firmly rejects' US claim that it violated tariff deal

RTÉ News​

time3 hours ago

  • RTÉ News​

China 'firmly rejects' US claim that it violated tariff deal

China has said it "firmly rejects" US claims that it had violated a sweeping tariffs deal, as tensions between the two economic superpowers showed signs of ratcheting back up. Last month, China and the US agreed to slash staggeringly high tariffs on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. However, top US officials last week accused China of violating the deal, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying Beijing was "slow-rolling" the agreement in comments to "Fox News". China hit back, saying the US "has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts". "China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations," the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had "totally violated" the deal, without providing details. China's commerce ministry said it "has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus". It fired back that the US "has successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China" since the Geneva talks. The ministry cited export controls on artificial intelligence chips, curbs on the sale of chip design software and the revocation of Chinese student visas in the United States. "We urge the US to meet China halfway, immediately correct its wrongful actions, and jointly uphold the consensus from the Geneva trade talks," the ministry said. If not, "China will continue to resolutely take strong measures to uphold its legitimate rights and interests," it added. Trump-Xi talks? US officials have said they are frustrated by what they see as Chinese foot-dragging on approving export licences for rare earths and other elements needed to make cars and chips. However, Washington's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent looked to ease the pressure, saying the two sides could arrange a call between their respective heads of state to resolve their differences. "I'm confident... this will be ironed out" in a call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Mr Bessent said on CBS's "Face the Nation". He added, however, that China was "withholding some of the products that they agreed to release", including rare earths. On when a Trump-Xi call could take place, Mr Bessent said: "I believe we will see something very soon." China has been less forthcoming, and the commerce ministry's statement did not mention any planned conversations between the two leaders. The Geneva deal was "an important consensus reached by the two sides on the principle of mutual respect and equality, and its results were hard-won", the ministry said. It warned the US against "going its own way and continuing to harm China's interests".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store