Most organizations have a set of stated values. They may talk about honesty, respect, accountability, teamwork, service, inclusion, or integrity. Those values may appear on the organization’s website, in an employee handbook, on a wall somewhere, or in a speech from the CEO.
But what happens when the behavior of the people making decisions doesn’t match what the organization says it values?
This is not an unusual problem. An employee can believe in the organization’s stated values and still see those values contradicted by the everyday behavior of supervisors, executives, or coworkers. The organization says accountability matters, but someone with influence is repeatedly allowed to avoid responsibility. The organization says communication is important, but people who raise uncomfortable issues are ignored or criticized. The organization says people should be treated with respect, yet disrespectful behavior is tolerated when it comes from the right person.
After a while, you begin to wonder which version of the organization is the real one.
There is a simple way to think about this. What an organization says it values and what it actually rewards, tolerates, and ignores are not always the same thing. The stated values tell you what the organization says it wants to be. The behavior you see every day tells you something about how the organization actually operates.
That doesn’t mean every inconsistency is evidence of a bad organization. Organizations are made up of people, and people don’t always live up to the standards they establish. A good organization can have a bad decision, a poor leader, or an employee who behaves badly. The more important question is whether the inconsistency is an occasional failure or whether it has become a recognizable pattern.
This is where cognitive dissonance can become a problem for employees. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that occurs when two things we believe to be true don’t fit together. You believe the organization values honesty, but you watch people manipulate information. You believe accountability matters, but you see people avoid responsibility without consequences. You believe the organization respects its employees, but you see behavior that suggests otherwise.
Something doesn’t fit.
People have different ways of dealing with that discomfort. Some rationalize what they see. Some convince themselves that it isn’t really their concern. Some become cynical and stop believing anything the organization says. Others gradually adjust their own behavior to fit the environment. If everybody else is doing it, they reason, maybe this is simply the way things are done here.
That last step can be particularly dangerous.
You don’t have to resolve the contradiction by abandoning your own standards. An organization’s failure to live up to its values does not require you to abandon yours. If accountability is weak, you can still take responsibility for your own work. If communication is poor, you can still communicate honestly. If people are cutting corners, you can decide where you are unwilling to cut corners yourself.
This does not mean you should become self-righteous or spend your working life trying to correct everyone around you. You also don’t have control over every decision made by people above you or every behavior exhibited by your coworkers. You do, however, have considerable control over your own conduct, your own decisions, the way you treat people, and the boundaries you are willing to establish.
Sometimes that means raising a concern. Sometimes it means asking a question rather than making an accusation. Sometimes it means documenting what happened. And sometimes it means recognizing that you cannot change the organization from your position within it.
Not every conflict between stated values and actual behavior requires an employee to leave. People and organizations make mistakes. What deserves closer attention is a persistent pattern in which the stated values are repeatedly contradicted and the contradictory behavior is rewarded, protected, or simply tolerated.
At some point, the issue becomes personal. You have to ask yourself whether you can continue working in that environment without compromising standards that matter to you.
There isn’t a universal answer to that question. Each of us has to decide what we are willing to accept.
But there is one thing worth remembering. You don’t have to pretend the contradiction isn’t there. You don’t have to participate in it. And you don’t have to let someone else’s behavior determine your own.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Use this form to be notified about new articles as I publish them!
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
