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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenbGmEYkRUlusHoxikner@ChacDLmracUsDtiTIWXpoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Emotions at Work:
- If You Weren't So Wrong So Often, I'd Agree with You
- Diversity of perspectives is one of the great strengths of teams. Ideas contend and through contending
they improve each other. In this process, criticism of ideas sometimes gets personal. How can we critique
ideas safely, without hurting each other, while keeping focused on the work?
- Getting Home in Time for Dinner
- Some of us are fortunate — we work for companies that make sure they have enough people to do
all the work. Yet, we still work too many hours. We overwork ourselves by taking on too much, and then
we work long hours to get it done. If you're an over-worker, what can you do about it?
- When Naming Hurts
- One of our great strengths as Humans is our ability to name things. Naming empowers us by helping us
think about and communicate complex ideas. But naming has a dark side, too. We use naming to oversimplify,
to denigrate, to disempower, and even to dehumanize. When we abuse this tool, we hurt our companies,
our colleagues, and ourselves.
- Are You Micromanaging Yourself?
- Feeling distrusted and undervalued, we often attribute the problem to the behavior of others —
to the micromanager who might be mistreating us. We tend not to examine our own contributions to the
difficulty. Are you micromanaging yourself?
- 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.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming August 22: Dealing with Credit Appropriation
- Very little is more frustrating than having someone else claim credit for the work you do. Worse, sometimes they blame you if they get into trouble after misusing your results. Here are three tips for dealing with credit appropriation. Available here and by RSS on August 22.
- And on August 29: Please Reassure Them
- When things go wildly wrong, someone is usually designated to investigate and assess the probability of further trouble. That role can be risky. Here are three guidelines for protecting yourself if that role falls to you. Available here and by RSS on August 29.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrensxedyDjhXYxePmiBner@ChackjRInYCOhekqCHHxoCanyon.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
- 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.