SYCOPHANCY: A COMPLIMENTARY RESEARCH STRATEGY FOR COLLEGE STUDENT EDUCATORS, BUSINESS LEADERS, FACULTY AND WORKERS.

INTRODUCTION

Wikipedia defines sycophancy as” flattery that is very obedient” The act is insincere. (https:Wikipedia.org/wiki/SYCOPHANCY)

 This source lists 15 other words that are alternative phrases such as “yes-man” and “sucking up.” Further, there are 10 other related words. It appears to be part of the human condition.

Other sources indicate that there are three main components in an educational system and other formal associations. The target is a person who hears the insincere compliment. The second is the perpetrator who speaks the insincere compliment and the third is another person who witnesses the social interaction. (Parker, D. & M. Parker, 2017)

DESCRIPTION

From the middle of the 20^th century, Erving Goffman introduced a related term “impression management” in his The PRESENTATION OF THE SELF IN EVERYDAY LIFE (1959.) It is how individuals living in gesellschaft-urban- suburban life make the best presentation of themselves although some of it is not valid. In gemeinschaft-town-country such behavior is less extreme. Social actors may have known an individual from birth. Faking is much more difficult. In some form it is everywhere. (Ibid, 2017)

All of this was part of the concerns of sociologists and psychologist previous to the Vietnam War. Such terms as normal neurosis, over conformity, otherness, anomie, alienation, and sycophancy were part of an outwardly civil and friendly society that did untoward acts and learned to cover them up (Putney, S. & G. Putney. 1965) this was not only on the university campus but in   businesses.  Loneliness and meaningful interaction was covered over with fake behavior as one lived in the greatest country in the world. During the Vietnam War, one was encouraged to” let it all hang out.” That meant reduce the phoniness. How much of that came about is left to historians. It would appear that a surviving society may have less extreme impression management than an already successful society where insincerity is intermingled with material acquisition. However, this author suggests that this comparison is one of degree. Insincerity is part of human interaction (Ibid. 2017)

From the two academic disciplines the term “impression management” moved on to the applied academic area of business and could be applied to college student education. Sycophancy is not exactly the same as “impression management.” They differ in that sycophancy is more comprehensive and “impression management” is a subset. The first can come from an innocent gesture that appears insincere. It can mean that nearly all sales and economic terms contain sycophancy but it has been customized and is habitual. A large part of selling contains both terms. One is to please the target, but this pleasantness although without its artificiality still continues. The other is that the predator quickly drops the phony insincerity when they discover the target lacks interest in the product or service. Inauthenticity can be presented in such a superior way that it appears to be an honest compliment so that the presenter appears genuine. In the long run, you have a very lonely person behind an immaculate presentation. There may even be a separation of the self, the real self from the façade. When you have a whole group or nation doing this, you have a very divided and impersonal society. (Parker, D & M. Parker 2017)

In a market culture, the presenter should excel outside and inside the group. This may apply to other social and economic systems like colleges and universities.

One can be impressive and not take the presentation to one’s primary group which usually or can be the source of intimate and meaningful relations.

Business or colleges may set criteria about what is good for the system. If what is good for the company is not nourishing to the self, there is a cognitive conflict (Putney S. and G. Putney 1965.) Thus finding indirect self acceptance to an outside group is the foundation of an unhappy individual(s.)Thus impression management is extremely important to the success of a company or university. However, it is not necessarily going to help emotionally for its workers and/or faculty. (Ibid.1965)

The measurement for “impression management” appears to be complete. Sources used factor analysis, and related so that the Impression Management scale or IM scale has at least an interval base line. That means that although there is not a zero base, component questions are related, equidistant, and suitable for ratio measures like stepwise  multiple regression and analysis of variance. It still has flaws but future research may use triangulation which means both qualities and quantities measures are combined may improve one’s analysis.   The book Parker D. & M. Parker (2017) with the title of SUCKING UP covers nearly all the above material and sycophancy is defined not only from the social sciences, but theology, literature, the silver screen, social media, and other areas. It is a wonderful contribution to an everyday activity of humans around the world in urban and suburban locations.

METHODOLOGY

The Snell Working Relations Assessment is a replication of the presidential poll often used by C-Span and other organizations. Although created by political scientist who helped historians, the poll is much less accurate and valid than the IM or impression management scale discussed previously. (www.c-span.or/presidentsurvey/2017/page=methodology)

The Snell Assessment is based on a lower level of statistical sophistication. It is an ordinal poll. What we discover is that it does not have a zero base, the component entries are not equidistant, and it cannot be related in such a way that an individual’s actions or statements are twice as much as another person Rather, an individual or faculty appears to have more of a certain measure than the other. How much difference is not measured? Further, the presidential poll uses averages. An average is more relative to interval and ratio analysis, or hard numbers.

The Snell Assessment uses medians. Further, as a measure of central tendency it is less likely to have a few extreme numbers that might distort the middle number of the results. Thus the median is the more accurate measure of central tendency. Further, unfortunately hard number theory is used. Ideally, soft number statistics would be superior.

So the poll is unidemensional in measurement but subject- multidimensional in definition. It is the author’s contention that “sincerity” is the most basic primitive term as used by Zetterberg (1965). If anything sycophant educators are not sincere although they pretend to be. As indicated earlier the perpetrator’s motive is negative and self serving as stated to the target. However, the third person is usually the judge of the level of sucking up.

It is quite possible that the perpetrator is really a first person making a sincere compliment. That the target is really the second person and the observer or third person perceives the comment and/or compliment as honest. Sincerity is the umbrella term encompassing sycophancy then impression management. The two usually lack honesty.

The ASSESSMENT contains the following:

1. The name of the instrumental question does not encourage the rater to know that they are completing a ranking that is about sycophancy. 
2. It is called WORKING RELATIONS WITH “John Doe.” John Doe is the sample name for the rater.
3. A description of the 5 levels of sincerity is described. It is a Likert scale and face validated. All levels are numbered and equidistant. Each has a number from 1 to 5. (Simplypsychology.org/ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT.)
4. The top statement is “This person is SINCERE.” Strongly Agree/ Agree/ Undecided/ Disagree/ Strongly Disagree.
5. This short question is the quantitative part of this ASSESSMENT and is followed by a qualitative component.
6. . A short essay explaining the ranking is given to the observer. That portion should not be quantified.
7. The assessment is given to the manager/ Dean and fellow workers and/or faculty. The ranking is anonymous. An individual rank is then compared to the median rank. No one can rank themselves.
8. The party giving the assessment is from outside the working group.
9. A computer analyzes the median rank and remarks made on the poll are given to the individual worker in private. The individual median is compared to the group median. A statistical range is also reported. The essay portion needs to be euphemized to not destroy morale. So John Doe is really a phony becomes, John Doe needs to improve social skills. If necessary, the poll is placed in the file and is seen only by individual faculty or worker and Dept. head or manager.

10. The annual report on the worker or manager contains remarks about the assessment. It is placed in the personal file of the worker.

So what? Why bother? The assessment is an indication of one’s relationship among other workers or faculty. It is not necessarily a performance poll. It would appear to this author using this or related assessments that ongoing and successful companies or universities have above median morale and production. Such as the Blake-Mouton theory, (Staff, en wikepedia.org/Managerial_grid_model, 1964) Thus it is part of other measures and comments in one’s file. It would complement the Impression Management Scale.

The Snell WORKING RELATIONS ASSESSMENT should be part of an ongoing annual evaluation of the above phenomena. It is assumed that the instrument is mainly qualitative but uses some key features of quantity. It may be used in the work setting and other activities outside of work or campus. This could include showing up to work inebriated, violence at work, and related. The important issue for the business corporation or university is how the outside life impacts the inside work relationships.

Sycophancy is with us. Measuring it and doing so correctly will not destroy it, but it may help us to filter out those individuals who may misuse their social skills against others and the company or educational system.

REFERENCES CITED

c-span. Or/president survey/2017/page=methodology)

Goffman, E. (1959) the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Thoughtco

McLeod, S.A. (2008). Likert Scale. Retrieved from www.simply psychology.org/likert-scale.html

Parker, D, & M. Parker (2017) Sucking Up, a Brief Consideration of Sycophancy, London:  University of Virginia Press, 127

Putney, S. & G. Putney (1965) Normal Neurosis, New York: Harper and Row

 Staff, en wikepedia.org/Managerial_grid_model, (1964)

Wikipedia.org/wiki/SYCOPHANCY

Zetterberg, H. (1965) On Theory and Verification in sociology, New York: Bedminster, 177 pages.

.