Can we assume from this consistency principle that an individual’s behavior can always be predicted if we know his or her attitude on a subject? The answer isn’t a simple “yes” or “no.” Why? Cognitive dissonance theory.

Cognitive dissonance theory, proposed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, sought to explain the relationship between attitudes and behavior.14 Cognitive dissonance is any incompatibility or inconsistency between attitudes or between behavior and attitudes. The theory argued that inconsistency is uncomfortable and that individuals will try to reduce the discomfort and, thus, the dissonance.

Of course, no one can avoid dissonance. You know you should floss your teeth every day, but don’t do it. There’s an inconsistency between attitude and behavior. How do people cope with cognitive dissonance? The theory proposed that how hard we try to reduce dissonance is determined by three things: (1) the importance of the factors creating the dissonance, (2) the degree of influence the individual believes he or she has over those factors, and (3) the rewards that may be involved in dissonance.

If the factors creating the dissonance are relatively unimportant, the pressure to correct the inconsistency will be low. However, if those factors are important, individuals may change their behavior, conclude that the dissonant behavior isn’t so important, change their attitude, or identify compatible factors that outweigh the dissonant ones.

How much influence individuals believe they have over the factors also affects their reaction to the dissonance. If they perceive the dissonance is something about which they have no choice, they won’t be receptive to attitude change or feel a need to do so. If, for example, the dissonance-producing behavior was required as a result of a manager’s order, the pressure to reduce dissonance would be less than if the behavior had been performed voluntarily. Although dissonance exists, it can be rationalized and justified by the need to follow the manager’s orders—that is, the person had no choice or control.

Finally, rewards also influence the degree to which individuals are motivated to reduce dissonance. Coupling high dissonance with high rewards tends to reduce the discomfort by motivating the individual to believe that there is consistency.

Let’s look at an example. Tracey Ford, a corporate manager, believes strongly that no company should lay off employees. Unfortunately, Tracey has to make decisions that trade off her company’s strategic direction against her convictions on layoffs. She knows that organizational restructuring means some jobs may no longer be needed. She also knows layoffs are in the best economic interest of her firm. What will she do? Undoubtedly, Tracey is experiencing a high degree of cognitive dissonance. Let’s explain her behavior.

1. Importance of factors. Because of the importance of the issues in this example, she can’t ignore the inconsistency. To deal with her dilemma, she can follow several steps. She can change her behavior (lay off employees). Or she can reduce dissonance by concluding that the dissonant behavior is not so important after all (“I’ve got to make a living, and in my role as a decision maker, I often have to place the good of my company above that of individual organizational members”). She might also change her attitude (“There is nothing wrong in laying off employees”). Finally, another choice would be to seek out more consonant elements to outweigh the dissonant ones (“The long-term benefits to the surviving employees from our restructuring more than offset the associated costs”).

2. Degree of influence. The degree of influence that Tracey believes she has also impacts how she reacts to the dissonance. If she perceives the dissonance to be uncontrollable—something about which she has no choice—she’s less likely to feel she needs to change her attitude. If, for example, her boss told her that she had to lay off employees, the pressure to reduce dissonance would be less than if Tracey was performing the behavior voluntarily. Dissonance would exist but it could be rationalized and justified. This tendency illustrates why it’s critical in today’s organizations for leaders to establish an ethical culture. With the leaders’ influence and support, employees won’t feel as much dissonance when faced with decisions of whether to act ethically or unethically.15

3. Rewards. Finally, rewards also influence how likely Tracy is to reduce dissonance. High dissonance, when accompanied by high rewards, tends to reduce the tension inherent in the dissonance. The reward reduces dissonance by adding to the consistency side of the individual’s balance sheet. Tracey might feel because she is well compensated in her job that she sometimes has to make hard decisions, such as laying off employees.

So, what can we say about dissonance and employee behavior? These moderating factors suggest that although individuals experience dissonance, they won’t necessarily move toward consistency, that is, toward reducing the dissonance. If the issues underlying the dissonance are of minimal importance, if an individual perceives that the dissonance is externally imposed and is substantially uncontrollable, or if rewards are significant enough to offset the dissonance, the individual will not be under great tension to reduce the dissonance.16