Fooling Ourselves

When we simultaneously hold two conflicting beliefs, values, or emotional responses, we're said to be in a state of cognitive dissonance. The theory of cognitive dissonance predicts that in such states, we're driven to resolve the dissonance, sometimes in unexpected ways. Aesop's fable of the fox and the grapes is a classic example. Upon discovering some grapes hanging out of reach, and failing to retrieve them after much effort, the fox decides they aren't worth eating, whence comes our metaphor, sour grapes. The fox resolves the dissonance between its desire for grapes and its unwillingness to acknowledge its failure, by removing — without evidence — the desirability of the grapes.

Here are two examples of applying cognitive dissonance theory to workplace behavior.

If you can't do it, we'll find somebody who can

Upon being told that a task is impossible, some supervisors respond with this threat: Do what I ask, or I'll replace you. But it's far more sophisticated than a simple threat. In adhering to the position that the task is impossible, the subordinate would risk a demonstration that someone else is more capable. Since most people would find that outcome deeply troubling, the supervisor is here attempting to place the subordinate in a cognitively dissonant state. For the subordinate, the two conflicting thoughts are (a) the task is impossible and (b) my supervisor is implying that someone else can complete the task, and is therefore more capable than I.

There are at least Some organizations remain
committed to failed
efforts even though
they've clearly failedthree ways out. First, the subordinate can let the supervisor find a replacement, which could potentially lead to demonstrated success and the subordinate's termination. Second, the subordinate can look for alternative employment, while pretending to accept the impossible task. Third, the subordinate can decide that the task is possible. Most choose the latter, because the first two choices are so unpleasant.

Good money after bad

Some organizations remain committed to failed efforts even though they've clearly failed. Two common explanations for such behavior are that the advocates of the effort have a personal interest in continuing the effort, or that they've "lost their objectivity." These mechanisms sometimes apply, but cognitive dissonance can also be important.

Persisting in failed efforts can arise from dissonance between two ideas. First, there is the cherished vision of long ago, namely that the now-failing effort would produce dramatic success. Second is the thought that the effort is indeed failing. To resolve this conflict, advocates of failed efforts can accept failure, and then find a way to believe that their vision capabilities remain powerful, which can be difficult to prove. Alternatively, they can reject the evidence of failure. Many choose the latter, and for them, the project continues. To make that choice, they must find justifications, some of which are both transparently self-serving and transparently incorrect.

Three common explanations of the resolution behavior associated with cognitive dissonance are stupidity, lying, and hypocrisy. All are valid at times, but they're probably overused. Cognitive dissonance is at work at least some of the time.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

The Triangulation Zone

When somebody complains to you about someone else's performance, you're entering into another dimension — a dimension of three minds. That's the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the Triangulation Zone.

When You Can't Even Think About It

Some problems are so difficult or scary that we can't even think about how to face them. Until we can think, action is not a good idea. How can we engage our brains for the really scary problems?

Responding to Threats: III

Workplace threats come in a variety of flavors. One class of threats is indirect. Threateners who use the indirect threats aim to evoke fear of consequences brought about not by the threatener, but by other parties. Indirect threats are indeed warnings, but not in the way you might think.

Inappropriate Levels of Regard

The regard we have for others as people is sometimes influenced by the regard we have for the work they do. Confusing the two is a dangerous error.

I've Been Right All Along

As people, we're very good at forming and holding beliefs and opinions despite nagging doubts. These doubts lead us to search for confirmation of our beliefs, and to reject information that might conflict with our beliefs. Often, this process causes us to persist in believing nonsense. How can we tell when this is happening?

See also Emotions at Work and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings

Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.

And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I

Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIswJbXaTNfwIVwxBner@ChaccVXSwYNnHbuAZFOPoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented 6:00 PM June 29 (Eastern Time), Monthly Webinar, Technobility Webinar Series. You can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.