Reducing cognitive dissonance in modern organisations.
Net zero, carbon reduction, and the health of our planet remain critical concerns globally, and businesses everywhere are facing increasing pressures to not only take action to reduce emissions but to demonstrate their commitment to green principles. Unilever has hit the headlines recently after being accused of "greenwashing" and is currently the subject of a UK Government investigation analysing potentially false claims about their environmental performance; hypocrisy at best, ethically and reputationally damaging at worst.
Whilst not always intentional, paying lip service to important beliefs and causes can create cognitive dissonance. This refers to situations where demonstrated behaviours fail to align with people's values or beliefs if motives or actions are suspect. The good old "practice what you preach" some might say. People experiencing dissonance will generally try to reduce it, either by seeking confirmative evidence that it's justified or pushing back against it in favour of their personal beliefs and experiences. Attitudes remain consistent when the ABCs of Affect, Behaviour, and Cognition are aligned with each other, and can be strengthened by open discussion of how people feel about their experiences. This can help reduce psychological reactance, which generally occurs when we feel that our freedom of choice or self-expression is being taken away from us.
Greenwashing is the tip of the iceberg - the corporate obsession with so-called "wokewashing" behaviours and policies has also led to reactance from employees dissatisfied with the conflict between proclaimed organisational principles and the behaviour they witness on the ground. Take International Women's Day for example. As LinkedIn turned into a sea of temporary profile pictures, thought pieces, and banner-waving in support of closing the gender pay gap and promoting more women into leadership, an X campaign thoughtfully exposed those companies failing to deliver on the promise. Delicious.
Imagine if companies guilty of wokewashing were subject to the same level of investigation and fiscal penalty currently facing Unliver. It’s one of my #1 pet hates when people tell me their horror stories (some are truly awful) whilst the company or leader in question is busy virtue-signalling all over LinkedIn. I've lived it myself, which partially explains my attitudes on the subject. After all, the level of care and reactance to such topics is heavily rooted in our personal experiences and values.
For companies seeking to make grand gestures or implement policies in support of their values and people, ensuring a strong connection between attitudes and evidenced behaviours is key to maintaining consistency of beliefs, and to spare everyone involved from human and commercial penalties.
Comments