The Anatomy of An Imposter: How I Unmasked Don

While in France these past few weeks, I noticed several TV ads for The Apprentice. This biographical film, which just hit theaters, covers Donald Trump’s career as a New York real estate businessman in the 1970s and 1980s.

Fascinatingly, the movie trailer sums up the three rules that Trump supposedly learned from his mentor: 

• • Rule #1- Attack, attack, attack

• • Rule #2 – Admit nothing, deny everything

• • Rule #3 – No matter what happens, claim victory and never admit defeat

I’ll let you judge how true or oversimplifying this might be in Trump’s case. But one thing I know is that if you’ve lived long enough, you’ve probably encountered abusers, fraudsters, or simply imposters in your life, at home, at work, or on the go.

Some of these individuals are easy to spot, while others are more subtle. Over time, I’ve learned to look for the behaviors that help me identify, confront, or simply avoid them.

I vividly remember one colleague—we’ll call him Don—who, for a while, nurtured the illusion that he was highly competent, determined, and driven.

The truth was far from it, however.

Here’s how I learned to spot Don as an imposter and eventually got rid of him.

1 – Don was an “absolutist”

I didn’t notice it initially, but I eventually found Don’s “all or nothing” statements vastly inaccurate. Don was indeed quick at generalizing things.

We had factories in China, and I remember how our local teams struggled with some of his guidance. 

So, Don would be quick to claim at Headquarters that the Chinese simply didn’t get our culture, that we shouldn’t trust them, and that all we had to do was relocate to Mexico.

Don’s absolutist statements, coupled with his indignant tone, left no room for the necessary nuances. It prevented productive conversations that would have helped address these identified problems.

Not to mention how bad our Chinese teams felt when they learned about Don’s claims through the grapevine: it didn’t help build trust.

2. Don’s language was complicated

Don had challenges with our factories because his thoughts were convoluted, and he used complicated language to express his ideas. I’ll admit that some of the topics he was in charge of were complex. But was it a reason to use fancy jargon and ‘precise’ vocabulary to demonstrate his mastery?

Don would use “many” adjectives to describe intended processes, make long sentences, and even use Latin or non-existing English words to show off and appear knowledgeable.

The effect was quite the opposite; it all made him look less intelligent. Don didn’t get that the more complex a topic is, the more critical it is to deconstruct it and find the most straightforward language to make your points.

Don would say things like: 

“Our headquarters and the Chinese factory have reaffirmed their commitment to broaden and deepen collaboration; “in fine,” we held a constructive dialog on the importance of disciplined, rigorous process improvements and an innovative approach to automation.”

It’s pretty wordy! He meant to say, “Both teams have agreed to keep improving processes and automation.”

3 – Don ACCUMULATED the arguments

Whenever we disagreed, Don excelled at overwhelming us with a barrage of arguments instead of focusing on a few, or even just one, good reason.

Don’s slide presentations were a perfect illustration. For instance, he was a master at articulating the ten reasons why we shouldn’t seek another partnership in mainland China.

Don didn’t understand that the best arguments don’t require much evidence. Just one piece of irrefutable evidence or counterexample is enough to establish the truth.

We didn’t need Don to articulate all of his arguments. In that example, the point was that we had too many eggs in the same basket and had to “derisk” our supply chain partnerships.