Cognitive dissonance is defined as a “state of discomfort that humans experience when one of their beliefs, ideas, or their attitudes is contradicted by evidence or when two of their beliefs, ideas, or their attitudes come into conflict with each other.”
There are many levels at which cognitive dissonance may occur that can affect an organization and its staff in different ways. I would categorize cognitive dissonance into three distinct sets of dynamics: perception of reality, perception of risk, and perception of morality (right or wrong).
In the first set of dynamics, cognitive dissonance is an absolute hindrance to the proper functioning of an organization. The basis for any type of work or endeavor should always be a reality. One of the most interesting analyses of cognitive dissonance in this respect is a Woods, Lacey, and Murray (2006) piece about the world that was created by Saddam Hussein before his regime was ultimately overthrown by a foreign invasion. His generals and advisors were so afraid of the consequences of providing real information about the stakes of the invasion and his country’s ability to fend it off that Hussein’s government addressed it fully untethered from reality. His self-indulgent fantasy held strong while he controlled most of the variables but was unsustainable when consequences emerged in areas beyond his regime’s control. Despite evidence to the contrary, Hussein was convinced, as a function of the feedback loop between his self-concept and his commander’s reluctance to present him with reality, that he was well positioned to establish a veritable defensive position and ultimately win the war. Of course, this is an extreme situation that ultimately led to countless other tragedies and destabilization of standing geopolitical order, but it perfectly illustrates the harm that organizations expose themselves to when they maintain a cognitively dissonant position vis a vis reality. Consequences of letting wishful thinking drive decisions are fatal for governments and companies alike. The collapse of the entire global financial system in the aughts is another illustration of the negative consequences of dismissing reality in favor of a narrative that supports our aspirations.
In the second set of dynamics, the downside can still be significant, but it can also be more manageable and will not necessarily jeopardize an organization’s future. Without a proper risk management framework, an organization can be led too far astray into a riskier or less risky position than is advisable. Although underestimating risks is probably a more prevalent problem, my experience with this particular dynamic has been working with an overestimation of actual risks. I have twice worked in organizations that had no system to assess risk and undertook significant measures to mitigate what they had not properly identified. Whenever information or evidence was presented that ran counter to a high-risk narrative, it was met with a strong negative response. My interpretation of the situation in both cases was that we could manage our resources in more creative ways without an overwhelming risk, but in both cases, managers insisted on maintaining a conservative stance and not trying new approaches. It’s hard to say whether a different risk perception would have yielded different results given that the approach never changed – if asked about their justification, I’m sure these managers would say that their approach had been effective because they had fulfilled their mission without incurring any risks. From my perspective, however, both teams missed great opportunities to improve their performance. The point here is not to take on more or less risk, but to operate on assumptions that are not borne out in the actual evidence and maintain those assumptions when new evidence is presented that challenges them.
Finally, the third set of dynamics is where there is room for plenty of cognitive dissonances and where sometimes, some cognitive dissonance works for the benefit of the organization. Moral definitions are inherently personal and while we should not accept to work for an organization whose moral compass is entirely at odds with our own, we do need to accommodate for some differences in order to focus on real organizational outcomes instead of personal moral ones. My profession is a great example of an activity where cognitive dissonance at this level plays a significant role to ensure effectiveness. As an interpreter, I am often in a position where the views expressed by interlocutors I am supporting are at odds with my own moral perspective; on occasion, I’ve had to interpret things that I find offensive, even repugnant. Embracing the cognitive dissonance of these situations is one of the skills that interpreters hone over the course of their careers, and many fail to steadfastly maintain the required distance in interactions that contradict their moral positions. However, any organization that relies on interpreters depends on how effective they are at navigating through the cognitive dissonances inherent in their day to day responsibilities. An interpreter with strong moral views on abortion may be required to interpret exchanges between pro-choice advocates from different countries and thereby further international collaboration on an issue that is squarely at odds with a firmly held moral position. Without some measure of cognitive dissonance, this interpreter would not be able to perform his job.
In order to fully avoid cognitive dissonance with reality, managers must prioritize data collection, transparency and external independent feedback from neutral parties. Managers must also create incentives to encourage constructive criticism and even negative feedback from their team members in order to remain abreast of reality at all times. Critical voices, even if only playing devil’s advocate, must always have a place at the table for managers to be in touch with the realities that may affect their organization’s performance at all times.
In order to inform and manage risk perception, it should be connected to a risk management approach that can identify, measure and mitigate relevant risks. Whatever form this approach takes, it is essential that this system follow rules and reporting cycles that are not connected politically to the manager in any way. In other words, it is essential that the manager’s only stake in the risk management system is to be fully informed about existing and potential risks.
Finally, in order to work with the inherent cognitive dissonance in professions like interpretation, a manager must constantly engage the team to emphasize the importance of the ultimate goal of communication over the actual content of the interactions. The most effective way of making sure that qualified interpreters are hired regardless of the political/moral dimensions of a particular interaction is to insist to the most qualified interpreters that ideas need to be expressed eloquently and articulately in order to be discussed and countered. Besides, it serves no one’s interest to have underqualified interpreters as the conduits of ideas we find morally reprehensible.
In sum, managers can navigate the complicated world of cognitive dissonance by relying on actual data and checking their assumptions against critiques, having a risk management approach, and understanding and articulating the ultimate objectives of the organization so that some tactical cognitive dissonance can be accommodated as long as long-term strategic cognitive dissonance is dispelled.
References
Chater, Nick; Johansson, Peter; and Hall, Lars (2011) The non-existence of risk attitude. Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00303/full
Cultural Intelligence for Leaders (2012). Saylor Academy. Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0. Retrieved from: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_leading-with-cultural-intelligence/index.html
Woods, Kevin; Lacey, James; and Murray, Willamson (2006) Saddam's Delusions. Retrieved from:
Comments
Post a Comment