The aim of this study is to develop a model of ingratiation using Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis approach. In terms of purpose, the study is applied-developmental; in terms of data collection, it is descriptive; and regarding the nature of the data, it is qualitative. The statistical population consisted of 20 specialists and experts familiar with organizational behavior issues in a large mining and industrial company. Snowball sampling was employed, and sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. MAXQDA 2020 software was used for data analysis. Using Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis method, 81 discourse codes with 116 frequencies were extracted and classified into 5 main categories, including discursive duality, discursive labeling, verbal strategies, linguistic metaphors, and lexical manipulation. In addition, 131 descriptive codes with 228 frequencies were identified and categorized into 9 main categories, including managers’ reactions, structural and discursive inequality, organizational context, verbal strategies, resistance to ingratiation, causes and drivers of ingratiation, benefits and rewards of ingratiation, organizational consequences, and the reproduction of ingratiation. The findings showed that the most important causes of ingratiation included ambiguity in evaluation criteria (5 frequencies), centralized power structure (4 frequencies), structural insecurity (3 frequencies), and fear of weakened position (3 frequencies). The dominant verbal strategies included voluntary self-censorship (3), resistant silence (3), reality softening (3), and unquestioning approval (3). The main consequences were perceived injustice (5), filtering of real information (4), weakening of horizontal and vertical trust (4), and fatigue and demotivation among staff (4).