A series of seven studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology investigated how leaders who reward flattery are perceived as naive, potentially damaging their reputation and the perceived fairness of their organizations.
Flattery is an age-old tactic for impression management, frequently employed to elicit favors or positive responses from those in positions of power. Whether sincere or not, flattery can be used to manipulate others for personal gain. Prior research shows that flattery indeed works, leading to more favorable evaluations, positive treatment, and increased social and material rewards for the flatterer.
However, there is a significant gap in understanding how it impacts the target, particularly for leaders who are common recipients of such behavior. Across seven studies, researchers Benjamin A. Rogers and colleagues examined the potential costs of flattery.
Study 1 involved 181 academics who read a scenario where a PhD student flattered a senior faculty member at a conference and requested a favor. Participants were randomly assigned to read either that the faculty member granted or refused the favor and then rated the faculty member on perceived naiveté (e.g., naive, gullible, ignorant), competence (e.g., smart, competent, intelligent), warmth (e.g., caring, nice), and the overall fairness of academia.
Results indicated that faculty who granted the favor were seen as more naive and less competent than those who refused. Granting the favor increased perceptions of warmth but decreased perceptions of academia’s fairness.
Study 2 included 164 participants who prepared a presentation on negotiation tactics while competing for a bonus. During preparation, they observed their competitor flattering the lab experimenter and asking for tips. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions where the experimenter either granted or refused the favor. Measures included perceived naiveté, competence, warmth, organizational fairness, willingness to participate in future studies, and perceptions of the experimenter’s fairness.
Participants viewed the experimenter who granted the favor as more naive. Favor granting indirectly affected perceived competence through naiveté, increased warmth perceptions, but lowered willingness to participate in future studies and perceptions of the lab’s fairness.
Study 3 involved 124 MBA students who recalled instances where their current or recent supervisors received flattery and rewarded it with favors. Participants described these events and evaluated their leaders on naiveté, competence, warmth, commitment to the leader, and organizational fairness.
Leaders who frequently rewarded flattery were seen as more naive and less competent. Unlike previous studies, rewarding flattery did not significantly increase warmth perceptions for established leaders and was negatively associated with commitment to the leader and perceptions of organizational fairness.
In Study 4, 803 MTurk participants imagined a leader being approached for a favor in contexts of flattery, nepotism, meritocracy, or control. They were randomly assigned to read that the leader either granted or refused the favor. Measures included perceived naiveté, competence, warmth, organizational fairness, and commitment to the leader.
Flattery-based favors led to perceptions of naiveté, with leaders who granted favors in response to flattery rated as more naive compared to those responding to nepotism or meritocracy. This naiveté negatively impacted competence and organizational fairness. Favor granting in nepotism or meritocracy contexts did not significantly affect naiveté perceptions, highlighting flattery’s unique impact on leader perceptions.
Study 5 explored the impact of different types of flattery on leaders’ perceived naiveté and competence. Participants were exposed to scenarios where leaders received flattery on their appearance or professional achievements and either granted or refused favors.
Results showed that leaders who responded to flattery about their professional achievements were perceived as less naive than those who responded to flattery about their appearance. However, granting favors in response to any type of flattery generally led to higher perceptions of naiveté and lower perceptions of competence.
Study 6 examined the effects of granting favors in response to flattery, particularly when the favor harmed another individual or group. Participants read scenarios where leaders granted favors following flattery and then rated the leaders on naiveté, competence, warmth, organizational fairness, and commitment to the leader.
Leaders who granted favors that harmed others were perceived as more naive and less competent. This negative impact also extended to perceptions of organizational fairness and followers’ commitment to the leader, suggesting that the harm caused by the favor exacerbated the negative consequences of rewarding flattery.
Study 7 investigated the role of leaders’ apparent awareness of the motives behind flattery in influencing perceptions of naiveté and competence. Participants read scenarios where leaders explicitly acknowledged the flattery before granting or refusing favors.
Results indicated that leaders who acknowledged the flattery before granting favors were perceived as less naive than those who did not acknowledge it. However, even when leaders showed awareness, granting favors still led to some negative perceptions of competence. This suggests that while acknowledging flattery can mitigate some negative effects, granting favors in response to flattery still carries significant risks.
Across seven studies, the results consistently demonstrated that leaders who rewarded flattery were perceived as more naive and less competent, negatively affecting their reputation and the perceived fairness of their organizations. The negative impact of rewarding flattery was robust across various contexts, types of flattery, and even when leaders acknowledged the flattery.
A limitation noted by the authors is the reliance on self-reported data and hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the complexity of real-world interactions.
The paper, “Too Naïve to Lead: When Leaders Fall for Flattery,” was authored by Benjamin A. Rogers, Ovul Sezer, and Nadav Klein.
