Cognitive dissonance is a theory in social psychology referring to the mental conflict that occurs when a person’s attitude, behaviours and beliefs do not align. It may also happen when a person holds two beliefs that contradict one another.
Attitudes arise out of core values and beliefs we hold internally. Beliefs are assumptions and convictions we hold to be true based on past work exposure and experiences. Values are worthy ideas based on things, concepts, education, legal requirements and people. Behaviours are how these internalised systems (attitudes, beliefs and values) are expressed.
Cognitive dissonance causes feelings of unease and tension, and people attempt to relieve this discomfort in different ways. Examples include “explaining things away” or rejecting new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs, high resignation rates, arguments and workplace conflicts, workplace bullying.
Cognitive dissonance leads to long term mental stress and poor well-being of employees when they are stranded by family commitments and have to struggle to stay in their jobs.
Leon Festinger, a psychologist, published his theory of cognitive dissonance in his 1957 book, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. In it he proposed that people experience discomfort when they hold conflicting beliefs or when their actions contradict their beliefs.
Impact of Cognitive Dissonance in the workplace
Cognitive dissonance in the workplace is common and a significant cause of stress for professionals working in organisational support functions, such as risk management, health and safety and the human resources. In those functions, people are sometimes exposed to, or coerced towards tolerating, supporting and executing tasks which are in deep conflict with their sense of right and wrong, training, ethics, or personal values.
The fundamental importance of those internal beliefs needs to be emphasised, because in the majority of cases, they are the primary factors responsible for people choosing those occupations as a career path. For many of them, being health, safety and environmental advisors, trainers, nurses, paramedics, or human resources professionals is far more than a profession, it is a calling. When faced with conflicting beliefs and practices and the pressure to tolerate them, those professionals often experience deep personal dissatisfaction, distress and a state of permanent tension which can result in a range of personal health effects as well as chronic impairments to individual work performance.
Workplace scenarios of Cognitive Dissonance
Scenario A
A health and safety officer who is asked by his health and safety manager to ensure that a health and safety inspection “turn a blind eye”, “do not write too much non-compliances in the inspection report” and “do not send out so much email about non-compliances” which on certain factors will experience similar symptoms.
In many cases where a person makes a conscious choice to execute a particular task (stressor) against his beliefs and values, the stress does cause them to lose his / her moral centre, embedded long-term, and with variable intensity. This often leads to workplace related depression.
Scenario B
A health and safety supervisor who is asked by his health and safety manager to ensure that he coached the subcontractor by slowly explaining it to them, rather than instructing for a temporary work suspension and providing a fall prevention barricade for an open side of an excavation with 4.5 metres depth.
Scenario C
In a mega-scale construction project of a new gasification plant, a construction manager getting the health and safety supervisor, to shut his mouth by not raising any findings through his health and safety walk throughs, in front of all subcontractors and stakeholders during a coordination meeting. The health and safety supervisors later were further coerced to sign off on the Permit to Work, in the meeting, to expedite all administration work for subcontractors.
Scenario D
A health and safety manager asking his subordinates why they need to comply to all the local legal requirements. Also asking about each and every clause, so that he can justify himself in front of his superiors and other stakeholders.
NOTE: local legal requirements is a minimum requirement which a health and safety manager should know on his / her fingertips.
Negative organisation Safety culture evolves
Often, a big percentage of health and safety professionals when encountered with cognitive dissonance stressors of this kind, will still choose to execute tasks they deeply disagree with.
They will do this for several reasons such as:
* Positional obedience – Justifying their actions because instruction has been given from a person of greater authority / capacity in the organisational structure;
* Normalisation – Process of internal justification (trying to convince oneself that “others do it too”); and
* Emotional trading – Calculating that a future reward (family commitments, sole breadwinner pressure, work pass constraints) for obedience is worth the compromise of beliefs and values.
Another powerful reason for a decision not to challenge uncomfortable instructions is a natural human tendency towards avoiding a confrontation with an authority figure and the negative emotional experience which comes from it. All personnel in positions of authority need to be aware of this in terms of their leadership style and approach.
Health and Safety programmes are perceived as facades
Health and safety programmes in the workplace are the essential bolts and nuts of a machine (the safety culture, safety and health policy, safety and health objectives, the workplace safety and health management system). However, many perceive them as a facade, by having a generic programme developed and placed in the wardrobe as a white elephant. The implementation in the physical workplace is not verified on the tally of what is stipulated in the programmes.
Cognitive dissonance evolves in the workplace when health and safety programmes are perceived as facades and not implemented effectively. Stakeholders then struggle between their personal beliefs, values and perceptions of the law against the “facades” in the workplace.
A psychologically safe work environment must first be provided in order to accept feedback, suggestions and red flags raised to reduce or eradicate cognitive dissonance or even high attrition risk (“Empower staff to speak up freely on concerns about workplace safety” – ST 1 November 2021).
Traits of the unaddressed Cognitive dissonance
When cognitive dissonance is neglected and left unaddressed in the workplace, the following effects will often surface and evolve:
Increased absenteeism
This is one of the most common effects of cognitive dissonance in the workplace. People are finding it emotionally easier to justify their absenteeism than to be exposed to stress causing factors. In my opinion, the existence of cognitive dissonance related absenteeism is under-recognised and under-reported, which decreases any opportunity for the introduction of various corrective actions.
This early indicator of workplace stress is often masked by excuses and is often only discovered when formal processes of performance management are applied. Financial losses to organisations arising from this type of absenteeism are obvious and significant
Withdrawal and disengagement
Stressed employees are not productive employees. They often withdraw, cease to put their ideas forward and if they remain in the organisation, they function primarily in employment preservation mode. This has a significant impact and influence on other employees and the overall organisational culture. Employees suffering from cognitive dissonance often alienate themselves and others, and are disengaged from the key organisation processes they are meant to support and drive
Significant reduction in performance
This directly results from the above two points
Negativity and inappropriate behaviour
In addition to stress, people suffering from work-related cognitive dissonance also experience a range of other negative emotions such as disappointment, anxiety and anger which can manifest in a range of counter productive behaviours such as:
* Silent obstruction – intentional actions (failing to do) aimed at disrupting various organisational processes and causing damage
* Malicious compliance – intentional actions aimed at causing damage such as following all rules into the finest possible detail, even when it is completely counter productive
* Sabotage – although relatively rare, these are intentional actions aimed purely at causing organisational or personal damage
* Aggression – and other disruptive behaviour
High staff turnover
Eventually if not addressed, most cases of chronic cognitive dissonance will result in people departing from organisations. This is often a significant business loss in terms of organisational knowledge and resources used in recruitment, training and development. It also has an adverse impact on organisational reputation and the future hiring of high calibre candidates
Adverse health effects
Chronic workplace stress caused by cognitive dissonance often results in a range of negative health effects such as depression, fatigue, anxiety and much more. Those are especially likely in situations where a person feels that he or she is “out of options” and has to continue exposure to a stress-inducing environment due to financial or other constrains
Workplace stress claims
If not addressed in a timely manner, some cases of cognitive dissonance can easily alienate a person from the organisation and create a perception that the only way out of the situation is through making a workplace stress claim. Undoubtedly there are cases where this appears to be the only option.
In the presence of specific events and witnesses, the likelihood of the workplace stress claims can dramatically increase, often with very expensive results.
Common causes for cognitive dissonance in organisational support functions are factors such as particular management or leadership style, bullying, discrimination, application of double standards, inappropriate or unethical business practices and many others. Addressing those is the key for reduction of the cognitive dissonance in the workplace.
Solution: Internal Rationalisation through Circles of Control & Organisational Empowerment
For a practising risk management or an HR professional coming to terms with certain organisational decisions, instructions and practices can often be a matter of professional survival. In the majority of cases, causes for cognitive dissonance can be traced to organisational deficiencies and culture, as well as substandard and inappropriate leadership behaviours and practices which are sometimes tolerated at certain organisational levels.
As cultures in organisations can take years to change, support professionals are instrumental in facilitating this process. As a result, dealing with cognitive dissonance becomes a necessary survival skill, especially since in reality there are only two choices available: dealing with cognitive dissonance and winning the battle, or leaving the organisation.
Many outstanding professionals depart organisations long before they have had a chance to have a maximum positive organisational impact. Therefore, a conducive and psychological safe workplace with empowerment and authority to speak up freely is needed.
Mental Health Risk Assessments must be conducted to address and mitigate cognitive dissonance and all psycho-social risk in the workplace.
This article was originally published in African OS&H January/February 2022 magazine published by the Safety First Association. www.safety1st.co.za
Han Wenqi is an experienced workplace safety and health professional from Singapore, and an advocator with 15 years of industrial safety experience. He is a lecturer for the Bachelor of Science in SHEM and MSc in OHSW. He is currently a guest speaker / associate lecturer with the Leeds Beckett University, Cardiff Metropolitan University. His experience is highly sought after in Singapore mega projects.