Characterized by the behavior of a sycophant; displaying excessive flattery or servility towards someone powerful or influential in order to gain advantage. This behavior often involves insincere praise, obsequious actions, and a willingness to agree with everything the powerful individual says, regardless of personal beliefs. It implies a lack of genuine respect and a self-serving motivation. The actions of a Sycophantish individual are typically transparent and often viewed with disdain or amusement by those who are not the target of their affections, and can often be very unctuous to get what they want. This often involves pandering, currying favor, and trying to ingratiate oneself. The Sycophantish approach rarely leads to true respect.
Sycophantish meaning with examples
- The intern's Sycophantish attempts to please the CEO, constantly praising his ideas and laughing at his unfunny jokes, made everyone else in the office cringe. The relentless flattery felt more like a performance than genuine admiration, and everyone knew he was just trying to get a promotion. He was constantly at the CEOs side, ready and willing to do anything.
- In the political arena, the senator's Sycophantish devotion to the party leader, echoing every opinion and never dissenting, alienated many of his constituents. While he gained favor within the party, his lack of independent thought and willingness to compromise his principles made him appear weak and insincere in the eyes of his supporters who did not feel that he stood up for them.
- The actor's Sycophantish behavior towards the director, showering him with gifts and compliments, was an obvious attempt to secure a leading role in the new film. The other cast members rolled their eyes, seeing through his transparent schemes. They could see through this as he tried to outdo them and win the Directors favor with constant offerings of gifts.
- Despite her talents, the journalist's Sycophantish approach to interviewing celebrities, focusing solely on praise and avoiding any critical questions, made her articles shallow and uninteresting. Readers quickly lost respect for her work. Her writing style was boring and not very objective and failed to challenge any of her subjects.