The dishonesty you keep finding is usually the system you designed working perfectly.
Most founders treat employee dishonesty as a hiring problem or a character flaw. The founders who've watched this play out across multiple companies see something different — a system pattern wearing a person's face. The two flavors of dishonesty are easy to confuse, and confusing them is where the diagnosis goes wrong.
The first kind is the easy call. Theft. Fraud. Faked credentials. A salesperson moving budget between projects to land a commission check on a publicly traded client. These are not gray areas, and the right answer doesn't bend for top performers. The hidden truth most founders miss in these cases is that the thing you caught is rarely the only thing. If a top performer was willing to falsify a budget once, the assumption should be that other instances exist that you simply haven't seen yet. Cleaning the wound completely beats letting it close over the infection.
The second kind is where founders go wrong. The "I'll have it tonight" that everyone knows is fiction. The status report that inflates progress by twenty percent. The credit-grab in the project debrief. These behaviors are technically dishonest, but firing for them misses the diagnosis. Most are not character problems. They're system problems wearing character clothes. People exaggerate progress because they believe the truthful answer will get them in trouble. People take credit because the system measures individuals more than teams. People miss commitments because the planning culture rewards optimism in estimates and punishes realism in reporting.
The clearest evidence comes from the opposite of what most founders assume. Buurtzorg, the Dutch home-care company, handed full budget control to its ten thousand nurses with no management layer between them and the books. Conventional wisdom predicted theft. Dishonesty actually went down. Accountability moved from a watcher above to peers beside, and people stopped lying to a system that no longer treated them as suspects.
The opposite case is just as instructive. Meta's annual cycle of firing the bottom-performing third of teams reads as a meritocracy filter, but the math creates the lying it claims to filter out. If you're sitting on the bubble, your incentive isn't honesty about your own progress; it's whatever makes you look like a top-two-thirds performer this quarter. The system breeds the behavior it pretends to remove.
Every catch is a hiring question and a culture question. The hiring question — what did I miss in the interview that should have surfaced this — is the easy one. The culture question is harder, because it implicates the founder directly. If "we messed up" gets met with anger and consequences, the team learns to deliver "we're on track" until they can't anymore. If it gets met with a calm "what do we need to recover," the team learns it can tell the truth in real time. The Stewart Butterfield call to his investors — telling them the gaming company they'd funded wasn't going to work, here's how much of your money is left, do you want it back — is the version of upward honesty most founders intuitively avoid. The investors stayed. The internal messaging tool the team had built for themselves became Slack.
The whiplash to watch for is a founder who has trusted their team, gets burned by one clear act of dishonesty, and snaps to command-and-control management over the whole organization. That's the wrong move at scale. The right move is targeted: address that hire, ask what the interview missed, examine whether the role had inadequate checks for the level of fiduciary responsibility involved.
Watch the Full Episode on Employee Dishonesty below:
Follow us to watch live on YouTube and LinkedIn or listen to episodes on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.