Last month, we discussed the importance of an organization’s stated values being demonstrated within the minute by minute, hour by hour, and day by day practices by the members of that organization. Practices that are informed by clearly communicated expectations that are tied explicitly to those same stated values. This connection of values to expectations to practices provides a clearer picture into the organization’s ‘culture’.
Evaluating Practices Through Organizational Values
These practices can then be evaluated through the lens of the long-held beliefs of the organization (values) and their corresponding expectations. Practices that adhere to the values and result in the organization ‘coming together’ in order to achieve desired outcomes at a high level should be celebrated! Those practices that ‘push team members away’ or do not contribute to the work getting done should be evaluated for the cause of the disconnect and how the differences can be reconciled.
Understanding Cognitive Dissonance in Organizations
The challenge associated with reconciliation of practices that do not represent the organization’s desired beliefs is that these differences in desired versus observed behavior most often result in cognitive dissonance.
The American Psychological Association hypothesizes that two cognitions (for example, beliefs and practice) are consonant if one follows from the other, and they are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition follows from the other[1].
For members in an organization to identify that a current practice is, in fact, in opposition to a stated belief would produce dissonance that results in ‘being psychologically uncomfortable’. When we work with senior leaders, we remind them that this uncomfortableness can be the catalyst for positive change within the organization. Change that results in reconciliation of an updated practice to one that DOES follow from stated beliefs.
Addressing Unhealthy Organizational Behavior
Unhealthy organizational behavior is when dissonance in the organization produces ‘psychological uncomfortableness’ and motivates team members to reduce the dissonance by avoidance of any information likely to increase the dissonance. For example, if my organization values timeliness and I am consistently late to every meeting which results in being asked to address the lateness, I may look for context to ‘explain away’ my practices that do not adhere to expectations through context (traffic, alarm clock, etc.) or seek to ‘blame others’ (this meeting should have never been scheduled, no one sent a reminder, etc.) to reduce the dissonance. As a leader, I may try to avoid information that should reveal that I do not schedule meetings with enough ‘lead time’, do not clearly communicate expectations for when I would like everyone seated, or that my default ‘lie I tell myself’ is that someone late is ‘lazy’ when a vast majority of the data points on their performance should tell me otherwise!
Encouraging Leaders to Embrace Discomfort
In contrast, we encourage leaders to Be Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable in a way that reveals an opportunity to produce consonance that simultaneously brings the team together and achieves desired results.
How may leaders resolve this conflict in a healthy way to produce consonance?
First, by asking ‘What is my responsibility to them?’ before asking ‘What is their responsibility to me?’. A leader’s responsibility is to ensure beliefs, expectations, and practices are in consonance (follow from one another), indicative of ‘how we want to show up in the world’ and are clearly communicated at every level of the organization.
Second, if consonance is confirmed, then by working with individuals or teams to healthily change dissonant practices so that they do follow beliefs and expectations. Looking for opportunities for the organization to improve so that we all ‘win’!
And winning at all levels of the organization (down to each individual) is something with which everyone should be comfortable!
Creating Consonance with MRA
At MRA, we assist leaders in establishing decision strategies that contribute to creating consonance in the organization. As a result, the entire organization is empowered at every level for decisive action. Schedule a call today so that we may support you with a decision strategy for the problem that ‘keeps you up at night’.
[1] Cognitive Dissonance, Second Edition: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology, E. Harmon-Jones (Editor)
