Cognitive Dissonance And Behavior Case Study

1. Cognitive dissonance is "the tension produced by a conflict between attitudes and behavior" (Nelson & Quick, 2015). In my present position, I have encountered a conflict with the district manager, who is not my direct manager but definitely my superior. She is very abrupt, loud, high energy (to the point of causing chaos in the work environment), and disrespectful to her employees. Even though she has this type of personality, she expects her employees to be positive, upbeat, and to not question or ask questions if we have them (as she is always right). I used to be somewhat like her in the way of causing a feeling of chaos in my life, due to high anxiety and other psychological issues; however I no longer act like this and try very …show more content…
Groupthink according to Nelson & Quick (2015) is "a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement resulting from pressures within the group" (pg. 161). I worked in a hospital medical information department years ago. Our director was what some in the department called a push over. She didn’t like confrontation, therefore she went to a few employees within the department, and she thought she could trust, for advice. I say trust, because due to the culture within the department, everyone knew of her conundrum by lunch time. This part of groupthink, cohesiveness that Irving Janis refers to in the textbook, caused many problems within our department (Nelson & Quick, 2015. pg. 162). "Cohesive groups tend to favor solidarity because members identify strongly with the group" and "they are likely to have shared mental models; that is, they are more likely to think alike" (Nelson & Quick, 2015. pg. 162). Due to this shared outlook on problems within the department, problems were confronted using one form of opinion or model. Therefore, problems weren’t always solved. I, along with many other employees, was very disgruntled with this approach to problem solving. I believe as the table 10.1 on page 162, shows, there were many symptoms of a groupthink scenario within our department (Nelson & Quick, 2015). These included rationalization (using their ideas of change with proof they will work because they believe them), stereotyping the enemy (or coworkers), self-censorship (one or more persons never doing against the group even if the groups ideas were preposterous), and peer pressure. After many years of this happening, many employees had had enough and wanted change. Monthly meetings with all employees were started and all ideas were heard, this enabled group decisions. In table 10.1, it also gives guidelines for preventing groupthink. Many of these types of guidelines were put into place. Some of these changes were: asked an