The Deflection Playbook: Using Hypocrisy To Avoid Hard Questions

Forbes

2 days ago

There is one psychological reflex that often derails political debates, boardroom discussions, and even climate negotiations.
As Carl Jung observed, 'Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.
It's a simple quote, but it lands like a punch. On some conscious or subconscious level, we are wired to look for the very behaviors we can't stand. They're usually on our radar. And when we see them in someone else, we react with an intensity that surprises even us.
You could see this dynamic at work in the eurozone debt crisis. EU leaders pressed Greece on fiscal mismanagement, and many Greek officials deflected attention to the questionable behavior of those asking the question:
'You lecture us about discipline, but you broke the same deficit rules years ago.'
This isn't just European history—it's a core playbook in political economy and politics in general When faced with hard questions about their actions, leaders around the world shirk responsibility by focusing on their opponent's hypocrisy.
Understanding this dynamic—and the false premise it's built on—may be one of the keys to breaking some of the world's biggest stalemates, from climate negotiations to boardroom stand-offs.The False Premise Behind Hypocrisy as a Deflection
Underneath this strategy of deflection is a crucial—and rarely examined—implication: that the opponent's hypocrisy is somehow remarkable, new, or sensational. That it's the thing we should be outraged about.
But it's not. In fact, hypocrisy is the polar opposite. It's a part of the human condition. We all live with competing priorities, shifting beliefs, and a disconnect between what we say and what we do. Yet the moment someone suggests that their opponent's inconsistency as novel, the room shifts.
This tactic works well for a few reasons. There is moral outrage: research reveals that when people perceive hypocrisy, they feel a mix of anger and disgust—emotions that amplify condemnation and perceived culpability. (Sean Laurent et al., Punishing Hypocrisy, 2014). There is also the radar effect: we dislike hypocrisy in ourselves, so we're primed to see it—and judge it harshly—in others Because we buy the false premise that hypocrisy is rare, we stop pressing for real answers. The deflection works, and the original question disappears.Climate Commitments & Data Privacy Regulation
Similar tactics are at play in smaller-scale international business disputes. A government that is slow to enforce environmental laws will publicly remind its critics that they themselves rely on carbon-intensive imports. An organization is accused of violating user privacy by selling personal data without clear consent -and instead of addressing the allegation directly-it responds by pointing out that the regulator making the accusation has itself been criticized for mishandling sensitive data.
And this isn't limited to climate negotiations or data privacy concerns. You see the same dynamic in domestic political debates, in trade wars, in disputes over human rights, and even in boardrooms when companies are pressed on earnings or strategy.
Again, the hypocrisy is not imagined—those double standards do exist. But by framing them as somehow shocking, the original issue gets sidelined. The deflection works, and everyone walks away with the illusion that the harder questions have been answered.The Takeaway & Why It Matters for Leaders
At the heart of this dynamic is the false premise that hypocrisy is rare. The idea that when we find it, it's remarkable or disqualifying. But in business, politics, climate negotiations, and almost every arena, the opposite is true. Hypocrisy is universal. It's part of the human condition because our priorities shift, our ideals and actions don't always align, and trade-offs are unavoidable.
That's why this tactic works so well: it feels sensational when it's really just ordinary. And the danger is that some of us allow this moral outrage—justified or not—to distract us from the core issues.
To be clear, bringing the dynamic to light isn't about apologizing for hypocrisy. It's about removing a roadblock to conversations that can promote compromise and holding people accountable without letting them deflect tough questions.
For boardrooms, understanding this matters. Executives and directors face the same deflections. When a tough question is met with a 'what about them?' response, it's a signal to pause. Leaders who identify the tactic can push past the outrage, stay focused on the real problem, and make decisions grounded in substance, not theater.
If hypocrisy is inevitable, the question is whether we'll keep letting it derail progress—or whether we'll push through it to finally address the hard questions at the heart of the matter.