Cognitive Dissonance In An Organization

It is no gainsaying that most of us if not all have experienced doing something that contradicts what we really believe in. For example, you believe that disposing of waste properly is an identity of a good citizen and has value for the environment, but, when confronted with difficulty in finding a bin and the discomfort of carrying it for a longer time made you decide to throw it anywhere. You may feel a bit of discomfort for not throwing it properly, but you are thinking it's decomposable anyway, so no harm is done to the environment.

This an example of cognitive dissonance. Consequently, cognitive dissonance is an interesting aspect that is being studied especially in the organizational context. Leaders are challenged to face the implications of cognitive dissonance not only on itself but also on its followers, and for the organization in entirety.

Is cognitive dissonance ever good for an organization? For an individual?

Cognitive dissonance could be said to be the feelings of discomfort which arises as a result of one's beliefs running counter to one's own behaves.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Behavior

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

What this means is that because people seek consistency in their way of behavior and therefore when your behavior runs contrary to what you are known for, it raises uproar and stress (Cherry, 2018). Cognitive dissonance in an organization is of a significant problem that causes a lot of stress. The impact is more felt by employees who are working in support roles. This is because those employees are more likely to be confronted with a contradiction between their work tasks, and their personal beliefs (Prvulovic, 2015).

Proper management of cognitive dissonance is paramount to an organization's success, because severe cases may impact the organization by way of increased absenteeism, staff turnover, withdrawal, disengagement, a decrease in performance, increase in negativity and inappropriate behaviors (Prvulovic, 2015). And most of all, the employees' health may also be in danger if the stress as a result of cognitive dissonance in the workplace is not effectively managed.

Furthermore, what psychology studies in cognitive dissonance are how people deal with dissonance. According to Social Psych Online (2016): people try to resolve their dissonance by:

• Changing the belief or opinion, so it's more consistent with the other cognition or behavior (e.g., 'Smoking isn't actually that bad for you.').
• Changing behavior to help restore consistency (e.g., quitting smoking).
• Adding another belief or opinion that helps restore consistency (e.g., 'But I do eat lots of healthy food.').
• Reducing the importance of the inconsistency (e.g. 'I enjoy smoking, so who cares about the health consequences?').

Cooper (1984) described that the more inconsistently, the bigger the dissonance is and the more the urge to resolve it. The conflict itself is harmless for either, but it becomes problematic based on the reactions of the individuals. "Dissonance makes people feel uncomfortable and is bothersome under any circumstance, but it is most painful to people when an important element of their self-concept is threatened" (Tavris & Aronson, 2016). Therefore, cognitive dissonance is not good or bad for and organization nor individuals. Cognitive dissonance can be a tool for growth and it seems inevitable but its understanding is crucial and could help the organization to understand the employee's behavior and why and how to interact?

Furthermore, Cooper (2007), found that "the more important the discrepant cognitions, the more cognitive dissonance I will experience. The more important the consonant cognitions, the less will be my cognitive dissonance." There are many ways to reduce cognitive dissonance, however, Cooper emphasis the following: changing attitudes or beliefs, acquiring new information and reducing the importance of cognitions (Cooper, 2007). The first approach: a change of attitude is something personal, thus, only the person can resolve to but is usually influenced by his/her surrounding. The second and third approach is where leaders could (and should) persuade to resolve the conflict in a manner that benefits them and the company.

For leaders to minimize the impact of dissonance, Firstly, they have to recognize that there are discrepancies in the belief system, thereafter, it should be identified and addressed. Secondly, leaders are to ask themselves certain questions. According to Cultural Intelligence for Leaders (2012), leaders can ask questions like:

1.  What are my organization's beliefs about culture?
2. What dissonance is present in our beliefs and our behaviors?
3. What gaps (in recruitment, within a policy, and in intrapersonal interactions) are created because of the dissonance?
4. How is this dissonance stopping us from truly understanding culture?

Lastly, leaders should make effort to assist employees to deal with their dissonance because a good knowledge of employees' dissonance will help both employees and organizations deal with intercultural situations (Cultural Intelligence for Leaders, 2012).

In facilitating the change of behavior, both leaders and employees must reflect on the three questions as suggested by Bridges (2004) (as cited in Cultural Intelligence for Leaders, 2012). These questions are:

• What is changing?

This is basically making sure and clear about what you want to change really helps in future cultural interactions.

• What will actually be different because of the change?

This is about visualizing the possible outcome when the targeted change of behavior takes into effect. Doing this will it boost motivation in going through the process of change?

• Who's going to lose what?

This is the process of evaluating how important to you the beliefs that you would want to change and if letting go of these beliefs will serve you well.

The above three questions will serve as a guide and a tool for employees and even for leaders to be more receptive to changes as it provides a clear and, in a way, a structured, logical chain of thoughts that may allow objective evaluation of the targeted changes.

• What approach can a leader take if he/she receives opposition related to changing behaviors?

The leader should identify first the root cause of resistance. Perhaps, there's a big gap of dissonance that causes employees to struggle in adapting new behavior, hence, explains why changes are being opposed. After knowing the root cause of opposition, the leader should overly communicate the importance of the expected behavioral changes to organizational goals and help employees in making the transition a lot easier by launching structured and objective process such as the one Bridges (2004) suggested. In addition, the article "Dealing with resistance to change" (n.d.) suggested the following ways manage resistance to change:

• Link the change to other issues people care about.
• Show you care and understand their concerns.
• Identify members of the team who support the change.
• Establish open conversation.
• Offer resources to help employees go through the changes.
• Act only when the timing is right.