Expense claim behavior: why employees overclaim or underclaim — Business Psychology Explained

Expense claim behavior: why employees overclaim or underclaim means the patterns people follow when submitting business expenses—either inflating costs or leaving legitimate costs off the record. It matters because claims affect budgets, trust, compliance, and the fairness of reimbursement processes at work.

Definition (plain English)

Expense claim behavior refers to the ways people complete and submit requests for reimbursement of work-related costs. It covers both deliberate and accidental choices that make a claim higher (overclaim) or lower (underclaim) than the actual cost incurred.

This includes small, repeated decisions (rounding up meal receipts), one-off actions (submitting an inflated mileage log), and omissions (not claiming a legitimate taxi fare). The behavior can be shaped by unclear rules, effort required to file claims, perceptions of fairness, and workplace norms around honesty.

Key characteristics:

• Employees may alter amounts, add non-business items, or omit valid expenses.
• Patterns can be episodic (one-off) or habitual (regular rounding or padding).
• Visibility varies: some claims pass automatic checks, others require manual approval.
• Motivations range from convenience and perceived low risk to pressure or misunderstanding.
• Impact affects budgets, reporting accuracy, and relationships between staff and finance teams.

Expense claim behavior is not a single problem with one cause; it’s a collection of behaviors influenced by process design, social context, and individual judgment. Understanding the variety helps in designing proportionate controls and support.

Why it happens (common causes)

• Confusion about policy: unclear or complex expense rules lead people to guess what’s acceptable.
• Perceived low risk: when controls feel weak, some treat small overclaims as harmless.
• Effort avoidance: underclaiming can happen when the filing process is time-consuming or receipts are missing.
• Social norms: seeing peers stretch rules normalizes minor overclaims.
• Budget pressure: teams or individuals tight on budget may underclaim to avoid scrutiny or to keep funds for other uses.
• Cognitive bias: anchoring, rounding, or loss aversion change how amounts are reported.
• Ambiguous business purpose: when travel or entertainment has mixed personal and business elements, judgment calls lead to inconsistent claims.

How it shows up at work (patterns & signs)

• Frequent small-rounding on amounts (e.g., always claiming whole dollars).
• Repeated claims just under approval thresholds to avoid review.
• Missing receipts accompanied by vague descriptions.
• Spike in claims around month-end or quarter-close.
• Outliers in mileage, meals, or entertainment compared with peers in similar roles.
• Multiple edits or late resubmissions to adjust totals after initial rejection.
• Inconsistent categorization of the same type of expense.
• Reluctance to claim legitimate expenses (e.g., small taxi fares) because of perceived hassle.
• Defensive notes on claims explaining why an item was submitted.

Those signals give you practical ways to spot where process or cultural fixes are needed rather than assuming deliberate fraud. Patterns across teams often point to systemic issues (policy clarity, process friction) rather than individual bad actors.

A quick workplace scenario (4–6 lines, concrete situation)

A project lead submits three meal claims at $50 each the day after a client workshop. One teammate notes colleagues usually round up to the nearest $5. The approver flags the pattern, checks the receipts, and discovers the card receipts show slightly lower amounts—prompting a policy refresher for the team and a short guide on acceptable rounding.

Common triggers

• New or complex expense policy rollouts without plain-language summaries.
• Time pressure around travel or reporting deadlines.
• Non-integrated tools that require manual receipt uploads and separate approvals.
• Ambiguous situations (mixed personal-business trips, shared meals with clients).
• Low perceived enforcement (rare audits or inconsistent follow-up).
• High workload where filing expenses is deprioritized.
• Thresholds that create incentives to split or bunch expenses.
• Peer conversations that normalize minor padding of claims.

Practical ways to handle it (non-medical)

• Simplify policy language and publish short examples of common situations.
• Reduce friction: enable mobile receipt capture, automated mileage, and faster approvals.
• Set transparent thresholds and rotate spot checks rather than blanket micromanagement.
• Use data alerts for unusual patterns (e.g., regular claims just below approval limits) and follow up with coaching.
• Communicate norms: share anonymized examples of proper claims and common mistakes.
• Offer a clear route to correct honest errors without penalty (easy resubmission or amendment).
• Provide role-based guidance (what sales reps typically claim vs. office staff) to reduce ambiguity.
• Train approvers on consistent decision rules and how to document exceptions.
• Tie experience: make the expense process part of onboarding and periodic refreshers.
• Encourage open channels for questions about edge cases so people don’t guess.
• Align timing: avoid deadlines that create rushes and last-minute approximations.

Start with the simplest fixes that remove confusion and administrative burden—those reduce both overclaiming and underclaiming quickly.

Related concepts

• Expense policy design — connected because rules shape claim behavior; differs by focusing on the written framework rather than claim patterns.
• Approval workflows — related through the mechanics of review; differs by concentrating on process steps and controls.
• Ethics and compliance training — overlaps in shaping norms; differs by addressing values and conduct education rather than transaction detail.
• Expense auditing — connected as a detection and deterrence tool; differs by examining claims after-the-fact rather than preventing them.
• Reimbursement timing and cash flow — related because timing affects whether people claim; differs by focusing on finance operations, not behavior drivers.
• Digital receipt capture tools — connected as a practical aid that changes behavior; differs by being technology-focused rather than policy-focused.
• Social norms in teams — overlaps with behavioral drivers; differs by emphasizing peer influence rather than individual decision-making.
• Threshold effects — related concept showing how approval limits shape behavior; differs by being a specific incentive mechanic rather than general causes.
• Managerial coaching — connected as a corrective approach; differs by focusing on one-to-one development rather than system changes.

When to seek professional support

• If repeated claim patterns suggest a broader compliance risk, consult a finance or audit specialist.
• When policy wording is legally sensitive or unclear, seek advice from your legal or compliance team.
• If workplace stress or team conflict related to expense processes is persistent and affects performance, consider HR or organizational development support.

Common search variations

• why do employees overclaim expenses at work and how to spot it
• signs an employee is inflating expense reports in a small company
• reasons staff underclaim legitimate business expenses
• how approval thresholds influence expense claim behavior
• examples of common expense claim mistakes managers see
• how to reduce padding and rounding in employee expense reports
• what triggers people to not claim reimbursable costs at work
• best practices for checking suspicious expense claims
• quick checks for inconsistent mileage or meal claims
• what to include in an expense policy to prevent misclaims