psych (TH)

Module2psych520.docx

Home >Psychology homework help >psych (TH)

Module 2: Discussion (I have the book but I am unable to attach it with this lesson. I have given examples from other students to help you answer these questions. It will be at the bottom of the page). Please pick out three replies amongst the student examples and reply with 250 words each.

Instructions:

In each module, you will have the opportunity to participate in an online discussion forum.

This week, there are three questions up for discussion.

It might be helpful to copy / paste the discussion prompts into an offline document (Word, for example), compose your responses offline, and then return to paste your responses here. (Please include each discussion prompt prior to your responses.)

With respect to your initial thread/ post responding to the prompts, similar to the Critical Thinking and Application Prompts, each discussion topic prompt is generally worthy of at least 250 words (2 - 3 well-written paragraphs) in response. Be sure to connect with (and informally cite in-text) any applicable readings / videos from the module's learning materials. Following this procedure in the discussion forum will help students who may be struggling with their graduate-level writing skills see the approaches that others are taking in response to these types of prompts.

With respect to your replies to others' posts (three per discussion topic), these can be more informal and are there just to help you all share important connections and build a sense of community.

Please post your initial response to the discussion topic question(s), and reply meaningfully to at least three of your fellow classmate's posts.

(You only need to create one thread for your initial post, responding to both prompts, in this case - you don't need a separate thread for each question.)

Discussion Prompt 1: With respect to the types of behaviors potentially induced by a state of cognitive dissonance, Aaronson (Chapter 3 Self-Justification) points out the following: People are capable of rational, adaptive behavior, as well as dissonance-reducing behavior.

What are the behaviors (and limitations) associated with protecting our egos through dissonance reduction? Why might it be very important to admit our mistakes - and why is it that we are usually so reluctant or unable to do so? What steps could we take to facilitate the chances of learning from our mistakes?

Finally, drawing on your personal experiences, describe a situation in which it was relatively easy for you to admit a mistake. Given that situation, what would you consider to be the necessary condition(s) that facilitate being able to face the truth about your behavior in a fairly non-defensive manner?

Discussion Prompt 2: Inevitably, mistakes will be made by executives, department heads, and team leaders over the course of the lifecycle of any corporate initiative or project. Based on what you have learned about conformity / groupthink and self-justification, what strategies might you, as a leader or project manager, employ to help your team avoid costly mistakes?

Discussion Prompt 3: Thinking back on Module 2, with respect to building your leadership expertise, pick three concepts / theories / ideas from the module that you would consider the most powerful and useful, and (for each of the three) describe how the idea can be adapted into your evolving leadership practice.

Examples

Discussion Prompt 1:

With respect to the types of behaviors potentially induced by a state of cognitive dissonance, Aaronson (Chapter 3 Self-Justification) points out the following: People are capable of rational, adaptive behavior, as well as dissonance-reducing behavior. What are the behaviors (and limitations) associated with protecting our egos through dissonance reduction?

According to Aronson (2018, Ch 3), we experience cognitive dissonance when we hold two psychological viewpoints that are inconsistent with one another in one or more ways. The tension that results from this discrepancy is unsettling, especially when a misalignment challenges our self-image. The human need for consistency is deeply ingrained, particularly when it comes to the alignment between our behavior and what we believe to be true about ourselves (Cialdini, 2009). When we feel dissonance between the two, we may even feel physical discomfort (Luttrell, 2016, 3:32). Regardless of how we experience cognitive dissonance, we are internally motivated to reduce it. We do this through a variety of strategies.

We might make changes to an existing attitude, belief, or behavior to correct the misalignment (Aronson, 2018; Luttrell, 2016). Redirection of this sort can be positive and helpful when the dissonance leads us to restore personal integrity and alignment with our values. Let’s say, for example, that I am someone who believes in protecting the vulnerable, but I later learn that I voted against the rights of those who are marginalized. When presented with new information, will I revise my beliefs or double down on my biases?

Another unconscious strategy that I might employ is adding new thoughts to justify or explain a cognitive or behavioral discrepancy. I did this regularly when I was involved in spiritual communities where we regularly used thought-terminating cliches to cope with cognitive dissonance, doubt, and/or an abuse of power (Lifton, 1961). Amanda Montell, author of the book Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism, brilliantly describes them as “psychological sedatives” (p. 86). Examples include: It is what it is. There are no accidents. You create your own reality. Everything happens for a reason.

Thought-terminating cliches aren’t all bad; we all need a reprieve from the onslaught of everyday reality from time to time. However, when we habitually use them to deal with cognitive dissonance, the limitations are apparent. When we are “not rational but rationalizing” (Aronson, p. 64) we may be sidestepping a critical opportunity for self-correction.

Why might it be very important to admit our mistakes - and why is it that we are usually so reluctant or unable to do so?

Contrary to what I learned in those same new-age communities, the development of a strong ego is a very useful thing. People with high self-esteem experience more cognitive dissonance when they are confronted with their mistakes (Aronson, Ch 3). As uncomfortable as it may be, perhaps this is good news because learning from our errors can help us to grow in our emotional intelligence.

We struggle to admit our mistakes for a variety of reasons. We might fear there will be negative consequences, such as losing face or a sense of belonging. Sometimes we struggle to admit our mistakes because, according to researcher Brené Brown, we confuse guilt with shame. In her book, Atlas of The Heart, she makes a helpful distinction between the two, sharing that shame is a focus on self, whereas guilt is a focus on behavior. Shame is "I am bad," whereas guilt is "I did something bad" (p. 134). This is a critical distinction that can help us to, not only accept accountability but also to resist an urge to offload our shame onto others. As Aronson reminds us, dehumanization is a common, and at times dangerous, dissonance reduction strategy (Ch. 3).

What steps could we take to facilitate the chances of learning from our mistakes?

When we own up to our missteps, we contribute to a culture of accountability. When we model desirable behavior, our subordinates are likely to feel it in their own bodies via mirror neurons and social learning, or “the process by which we learn by observing” (Aronson, p. 115). In that way, we are setting an example that others are likely to follow.

Similarly, when we are confident enough to make amends publicly and in front of others, we are much more likely to follow through on the commitment we have made to do better (Cialdini, Ch. 3). If we are wise we will use this awareness to our constructive advantage.

At times, the ability to see our mistakes comes along after the fact, once we’ve been exposed to a new environment and healthy social norms. For years, while working as a supervisor, I was silently complicit to abuse in the workplace. This was partly because I had been raised in a military family where obedience was valued and rewarded. Standing up to an authority figure was something I didn’t dare do, not because I agreed with their behavior, but because — like Stanley Milgram’s research participants — I was irrationally afraid to do so (Cialdini, Ch. 6). For years after leaving the organization, I grappled with my regrets and, as Charles Blow says, “There is no wrong time to do the right thing." In 2022, I went on the record, sharing my story and owning up to my mistakes.

It was relatively easy because so much time had passed and because I found a single ally to model accountability alongside me, which, as Aronson notes, “reduces pressure immensely, increases the currency of our convictions, and reduces the tendency of others to write us off as an outlier” (p, 150). Together, we made public repairs on my podcast and made room for our former colleagues to share their stories, too. Each one of us was able to tap into a courage we may never have found if we were each speaking out on our own.

Discussion Prompt 2:

Inevitably, mistakes will be made by executives, department heads, and team leaders over the course of the lifecycle of any corporate initiative or project. Based on what you have learned about conformity / groupthink and self-justification, what strategies might you, as a leader or project manager, employ to help your team avoid costly mistakes?

Overall, it seems to me that the best way to address these tendencies as a leader is to do our best to make them more transparent. In my OGL 551 course, we watched a YouTube video produced by Shadé Zahrai, and in it, she described how labeling an emotional experience can be helpful. I wonder if employing her “name it to tame” strategy might work well when it comes to some of these tendencies. For example, inviting people in the group to share aloud about a moment in the past when they felt strongly about something but were nevertheless hesitant to speak up. Normalizing conversations of this sort might go a long way to creating a space where it feels safe to express divergent viewpoints.

More strategically, I would like to implement each of the ten suggestions outlined in the Online PM Courses (2020) video. There are three in particular that I would like to focus on immediately as it relates to the work I do with groups. They are building more diverse teams, advising key people to state their positions last, and appointing a devil’s advocate. On this final point, I wonder how effective this is. Is everyone suited to this challenge? Will it encourage genuine dissent, or just work like a sort of performative item on the to-do list?

Lastly, minimizing ambiguity is also extremely important; therefore, the collaborative creation of a team charter would go a long way to combat “the illusion of transparency” and align the group around a common vision (Pilette, 2017). When we create social initiatives together, we can maximize immediate rewards and publicly monitor progress; both have been shown to solidify commitment (Cialdini, 2009).

Discussion Prompt 3:

Thinking back on Module 2, with respect to building your leadership expertise, pick three concepts / theories / ideas from the module that you would consider the most powerful and useful, and (for each of the three) describe how the idea can be adapted into your evolving leadership practice.

1. Cognitive Dissonance (Aronson, Ch 4; Cialdini, Ch 3; Luttrell, 2016)

I was first introduced to this concept many years ago, and I struggled to understand it. It wasn't until I was exposed to personal stories that it began making sense to me, and now I can identify examples of cognitive dissonance in my everyday life. Having said that, I have never been all that sure how to respond effectively. Thanks to the material in this course, I feel better equipped to respond to the underlying psychology of dissonance and how it motivates human behavior. It will certainly help me to modify my approach when consistency and commitment are at play in the workplace. I also plan to use this awareness to bring greater understanding and compassion to the political challenges we are currently facing here in the States.

2. Groupthink (Aronson, Ch4; Online PM Courses, 2020)

Groupthink is something that I have always found particularly challenging to respond to, both as an everyday human and as a leader. I appreciate how this module’s content not only underscored the dynamics but also gave language to so many of my experiences. In my work exploring cult dynamics, I was yet unfamiliar with terms such as mindguards, the risky shift, and best practices when it comes to key people in team meetings. All of the above will help me to lead dynamic discussions, encourage mindful participation, and hold at bay a premature rush to group consensus.

3. Pluralistic Ignorance (Aronson, Ch. 4)

The explanation offered by Aronson regarding pluralistic ignorance was hugely helpful for me as a leader. Having worked in the food service industry, I am very familiar with display ruleswhen it comes to customer service. What I found more fascinating was the explanation of instances where, as David Kennedy describes it, “everybody in a group believes that everybody in the group believes something that nobody in the group believes” (Aronson, p. 139). I have seen pluralistic ignorance go sideways in harmful ways, and I aim to continually do my best to model what a single ally can do to combat silent complacency. One of the questions I am currently obsessed with is how to help myself and others discern between trigger-induced moral outrage - like the kind we see on social media - and fact-based, constructive activism. I am not sure yet, but this course is inching me toward some answers.

Added Resources

Brown, B. (2021). Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience. Random House.

Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of "brainwashing" in China. W. W. Norton & Company.

Montell, A. (2021). Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism. HarperCollins.

Discussion Prompt 1: With respect to the types of behaviors potentially induced by a state of cognitive dissonance, Aaronson (Chapter 3 Self-Justification) points out the following: People are capable of rational, adaptive behavior, as well as dissonance-reducing behavior.

What are the behaviors (and limitations) associated with protecting our egos through dissonance reduction? Why might it be very important to admit our mistakes - and why is it that we are usually so reluctant or unable to do so? What steps could we take to facilitate the chances of learning from our mistakes?

Discussion Prompt 1: Cognitive Dissonance and Admitting Mistakes

Cognitive dissonance leads individuals to engage in behaviors that protect their self-concept, often through rationalization, denial, or selective interpretation of information (Aronson, 2021, p. 135). While this can be adaptive in some cases, it also limits personal and professional growth by preventing individuals from learning from their mistakes. People often resist admitting mistakes due to ego protection—acknowledging an error threatens their self-image, which can lead to discomfort. Additionally, commitment bias reinforces prior decisions, making it difficult to change course even in the face of new evidence (Cialdini, 2009, p. 80).

Admitting mistakes is crucial because it facilitates learning and fosters a culture of transparency. Research shows that individuals who openly acknowledge errors are more likely to develop adaptive problem-solving skills and resilience (TED Talk, Sharot). However, self-justification can make this process difficult, as individuals may reframe situations to align with their existing beliefs rather than confront their misjudgments (Aronson, 2021, p. 140).

In my experience, admitting a mistake was easier when the environment was non-punitive and solutions-focused. For instance, during a project deadline crunch, I miscalculated resource allocation. Instead of shifting blame, I owned the mistake because the team culture encouraged accountability over punishment. The key conditions that made it easier to admit the mistake were psychological safety, a shared commitment to learning, and leadership that valued constructive problem-solving over finger-pointing.

Discussion Prompt 2: Inevitably, mistakes will be made by executives, department heads, and team leaders over the course of the lifecycle of any corporate initiative or project. Based on what you have learned about conformity / groupthink and self-justification, what strategies might you, as a leader or project manager, employ to help your team avoid costly mistakes?

Discussion Prompt 2: Preventing Costly Mistakes Through Leadership

To prevent costly mistakes, leaders must counteract groupthink and excessive self-justification. Groupthink occurs when teams prioritize cohesion over critical thinking, leading to flawed decision-making (Janis, 1982). To mitigate this, leaders should encourage diverse perspectives and designate a “devil’s advocate” role in discussions to challenge prevailing ideas (Aronson, 2021, p. 170). Additionally, structured decision-making frameworks, such as pre-mortem analysis, help teams anticipate potential failures before committing to a course of action.

Self-justification can lead to escalation of commitment, where leaders continue investing in failing strategies due to sunk cost fallacy (Cialdini, 2009, p. 76). To counteract this, leaders must foster a culture where pivoting from bad decisions is seen as a strength rather than a failure. For example, integrating feedback loops where team members regularly evaluate strategies against key performance indicators can reduce bias and improve adaptability.

From experience, I’ve seen how transparent communication and psychological safety create an environment where team members feel comfortable raising concerns. Encouraging open dialogue, particularly in high-stakes decision-making, helps prevent overconfidence and allows teams to course-correct before mistakes escalate.

Discussion Prompt 3: Thinking back on Module 2, with respect to building your leadership expertise, pick three concepts / theories / ideas from the module that you would consider the most powerful and useful, and (for each of the three) describe how the idea can be adapted into your evolving leadership practice.

Discussion Prompt 3: Key Leadership Takeaways from Module 2

1. Cognitive Dissonance and Adaptive Leadership: Leaders must recognize how cognitive dissonance influences decision-making. By fostering an environment where admitting mistakes is normalized, leaders can encourage teams to adopt a learning mindset rather than defensiveness (Aronson, 2021, p. 145). In my leadership practice, I plan to implement regular reflection sessions where teams openly discuss successes and failures without fear of judgment.

2. Commitment and Consistency in Decision-Making: Cialdini (2009, p. 80) highlights that people tend to remain consistent with past commitments, sometimes to their detriment. In leadership, this means ensuring initial commitments align with long-term strategic goals. I intend to use team charters to solidify shared values and responsibilities, ensuring that early commitments do not lead to blind adherence but instead foster adaptability.

3. Encouraging Constructive Dissent to Avoid Groupthink: Asch’s conformity experiments demonstrated how individuals align with group opinions even when they believe they are incorrect (Aronson, 2021, p. 182). Leaders must actively solicit dissenting viewpoints to prevent groupthink. In my leadership approach, I plan to incorporate structured debate sessions and alternative scenario planning to encourage diverse perspectives in decision-making.

By applying these principles, I aim to build a leadership approach that prioritizes learning, adaptability, and critical thinking, ensuring that my teams can navigate challenges effectively and avoid costly mistakes.

When it comes to behaviors(and limitations) associated with protecting our egos through dissonance reduction, human nature is to not necessarily act rationally, but to act in such a way that makes their decisions or beliefs seem reasonable. For instance, as Aronson(2018, Chapter 3) stated, “If you ask the hypnotized young man why he wore a raincoat on a sunny day, he’ll come up with an answer he feels is sensible; if you ask the vice president of Philip Morris why he smokes, he’ll give you a reason that makes sense to him — he’ll tell you how good it is for everyone’s health to have a stress buster.” Also, it is inherent in humans to be right, and by doing so, behaviors can trend toward the irrational. Again Aronson(2018, Chapter 3) discusses this in detail, “No matter how smart they are, people who are in the midst of reducing dissonance are so involved with convincing themselves that they are right that they frequently end up behaving irrationally. By “irrational,” I mean their maladaptive behavior can prevent them from learning essential facts or from finding real solutions to their problems.” Ultimately, protecting our egos can cause us to miss the mark, while trying to prove ourselves to be right.

Mistakes happen, but when we, as humans, make them it can be very important to admit to them, as that is what can really make or break a relationship. “Only by stepping back and recognizing how prone we are to rationalizing and justifying ourselves can we take the first step to being able to apologize and really mean it — and thereby maintain healthy relationships.” (Aronson, 2018, Chapter 3) However, on the contrary, as humans, it is something that we are usually reluctant to do or just completely unable to do. We spend so much time being dissonant due to our strong desires to be right, that we miss the opportunities to assess the situation and acknowledge our mistakes. “We are so busy justifying our actions that we privately feel we did nothing wrong at all.” (Aronson, 2018, Chapter 3). It is as though we are hard wired in our dissonance.

The situation that comes to mind, where I was easily able to admit my mistake, was back in the height of Covid. My children were arguing, I was beyond stretched thin, due to working from home, adjusting to my children being home and doing online school. My daughter and my son were upstairs in my bedroom, playing, when I heard a big thump and a screeching cry. I ran upstairs as quickly as I could, already fuming as I just knew that they ended up pulling my dresser down on each other. That was not the case, but I came unglued to find out that my daughter and son were goofing around so much that my son fell off my bed directly on his back. Emotions were high, and I yelled at them. Surely, not my proudest mom moment. After I ensured my son was okay, and things settled, I was able to reflect and speak to them kindly to admit I was wrong. I should have never yelled in that moment of angst. I have raised them with a mutual respect that they are able to let me know when I hurt their feelings and vice versa. Although, I am an adult, I need to lead by example, and this was a pivotal moment of just that. Admitting when I am wrong with them is just as important as it is in the workplace.

Discussion Prompt 2: Inevitably, mistakes will be made by executives, department heads, and team leaders over the course of the lifecycle of any corporate initiative or project. Based on what you have learned about conformity / groupthink and self-justification, what strategies might you, as a leader or project manager, employ to help your team avoid costly mistakes?

Based on what I have learned about conformity/ groupthink, and self-justification, the strategies I would look to employ to help my team avoid costly mistakes would be those as presented in the video by Online PM Courses- Mike Clayton. As Mike Clayton (2020) discussed in the video on how to prevent groupthink, “diverse team; never let key people state a position early; start with a round-robin of facts; discuss all the options before calling for opinions; appoint a devil’s advocate; focus the group on looking for risks before final decision; split the team into sub-groups; invite outsiders into an established group; give everyone access to raw data; and finally, facilitate positively so everyone will be heard.” Keeping a diverse team is pertinent to ensure there are differing views within the team. There is not always one solution, and this can certainly help avoiding costly mistakes. Allowing members of the team to express themselves, feeling heard, will certainly also help avoid costly mistakes. Creating an environment where there is reciprocated respect, and anonymity, when necessary, would also be something I would work towards, as this can help minimize a groupthink environment, which has been shown to lead to costly mistakes. Lastly, I would utilize instilling accountability and ensuring an environment that was uplifting and safe. As Aronson (2018, Chapter 4) discussed in terms of accountability, “The people who showed the most independence and made the best decisions were those who were oriented toward being accurate and had to explain their nonconformity to the very people whose influence they resisted.” Aronson(2018, Chapter 4) also weighed in on self-esteem and security, “Similarly, how secure we feel in a given group determines how free we feel to deviate from its norms.” Overall, by creating a diverse, safe space, the likelihood of avoiding mistakes will be greatly reduced.

Discussion Prompt 3: Thinking back on Module 2, with respect to building your leadership expertise, pick three concepts / theories / ideas from the module that you would consider the most powerful and useful, and (for each of the three) describe how the idea can be adapted into your evolving leadership practice.

The three concepts/ theories/ ideas from the module that I would consider the most powerful and useful would be the following: Tali Sharot and changing behaviors with cognitive dissonance; Aronson’s depiction of humans acting rational and taking responsibility for their mistakes; and finally, Pilette’s explanation on the importance of harmony . First and foremost, Dr. Tali Sharot’s use of cognitive dissonance and examples to show how to influence positive behavior changes (Tedx Talks, 2014) was one point that really stuck out to me. As a leader, it is vital to influence changes without the use of coercion, rather trying to find creative, positive ways in order to do so. As Dr. Tali Sharot demonstrated in TedX Talk (2014) with her utility bill that was hung on her fridge as a constant reminder. Dr. Sharot explained the social incentives by showing where good consumption was, where she was and where exemplary consumption was. The utility company gave her an instant reward with the smiley face for her consumption being good comparatively. Then, it became Dr. Sharot’s personal goal to reduce consumption to match the exemplary consumption. (TedX Talk, 2014, How to motivate yourself to change your behavior | Tali Sharot | TEDxCambridge - YouTubeLinks to an external site. A black and grey play button Description automatically generated ) Ultimately, I want this in my toolbox because it demonstrates a positive way to enact change within a team or organization. This approach is positive, and allows for some healthy competition and motivation within a team.

Next, Aronson’s concept of rationalization when it comes to mistakes. As Aronson (2018, Chapter 3) stated, “If individuals concentrate their time and effort on protecting their egos, they will never grow. To grow, we must learn from our mistakes. But if we are intent on reducing dissonance, we will not admit to our mistakes. Instead, we will sweep them under the rug or, worse still, turn them into virtues.” As a leader, this concept is really important to me, and something that I want to ensure that I always keep at the forefront of my mind in any scenario that I am faced with and made a mistake. I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be. Mistakes are okay, but it is how we learn and grow from those mistakes. Ultimately, I want to lead by example, ensuring I own my mistakes and that I never allow my ego to get in the way of such.

The final concept that I feel is very powerful and useful would be Pilette’s on the importance of harmony. Pilette(2017) stated, “Without clear instructions, team members begin working under multiple competing perceptions of the goal, like musicians in an orchestra individually tuning their instruments to their idea of concert C, rather than synchronizing their technique to match pitch and perform harmoniously.” I want to ensure that I adapt this principle of harmony, as communication is key. By this, I mean it is key for us, as leaders to communicate effectively, but to also ask the questions to ensure the team understands what has been communicated. Lack of communication and assuming your team understands your ask, will not create the cohesion that is necessary within a healthy team environment. This concept goes for both my professional and personal lives. Without the harmony, time is wasted, resources wasted, and it has the potential to taint reputations. Ultimately, the reminder to communicate effectively creates the cohesive, solid teams that we all strive to have.

References

Aronson, E., & Aronson, J. (2018). The Social Animal. (12th ed.). Worth Publishers, Macmillan Learning.

Cialdini, R. (2009) Influence:Science and practice. (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Online PM Courses - Mike Clayton. (2020c, November 26). What is Group Think? . . .and How to Prevent it [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGGMf41K24Y

Pilette, P. C. (2017). Team charters. Nursing Management, 48(5), 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.numa.0000515803.94967.deLinks to an external site..

TEDx Talks. (2014, October 28). How to motivate yourself to change your behavior | Tali Sharot | TEDxCambridge [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0O2vi8DX4

Merriam-Webster defines ego as "...organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality". (https://www.merriam-webster.com). The ego gives us the illusion of protection, albeit only from our perception of ourselves. Significant discomfort can arise when one engages in a behavior that is incongruent with how one sees oneself. Aronson reports this human behavior, in theory, developed by Leon Festinger as cognitive dissonance, which is a state of tension that occurs when an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions [...] that are psychologically inconsistent. (Aronson, 2018, p. 92). During a cognitive dissonance event, a person may attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior and, over time, may become blind to their justifications and rationalizations that they believe their self-deception. (Aronson, 2018, p. 95).

One big step we can take is normalizing how we treat and view mistakes. Instead of allowing a mistake to make us feel shameful and destroy our self-esteem, let a mistake be a learning opportunity - a chance to do better next time.

At one of last year's holiday gatherings, I told a group of people I was about to start an online graduate program at Arizona State. I said "graduate program," not "graduate certificate program" because, for a split second, it made me feel better and superior. However, that split second of rationalization created such discomfort that I returned a few minutes later to correct my statement. No one made fun of my mistake, and I was not embarrassed. The party went on, and we enjoyed the rest of the evening. As Aronson mentioned, when we understand our ability to justify and rationalize our behaviors, we will sincerely learn to apologize for them. (p. 143).

Discussion Prompt 2: Inevitably, mistakes will be made by executives, department heads, and team leaders over the course of the lifecycle of any corporate initiative or project. Based on what you have learned about conformity/groupthink and self-justification, what strategies might you, as a leader or project manager, employ to help your team avoid costly mistakes?

Our company was engaged to manage a large project for a major corporation. This project's scope spanned three continents and would take three years to complete. The executive in charge of the contract negotiation team leaned heavily on their long-term relationship with the client and did not involve or request much input from other stakeholders. The executed contract seemed attractive. There were millions in expected revenue, the project's scope, and the industry's positive recognition. However, some of us knew the contract was substantially flawed, and we raised our concerns. By this time, it was too late. Although the contract cost the company substantial revenue, the leadership team struggled to admit it. They put out announcements justifying and rationalizing their decision. The contract situation is a good example of groupthink, as Irving Janis calls it. The negotiation team believed they knew all the answers, and if anyone noticed any unfavorable terms to the company, they ignored it in favor of group cohesion. (Aronson, 2018, p. 151). The executives' decision to place their full support behind the flawed contract also works well under the focus lens of Aronson's "irrevocability of the decision" - the [company's] inability to undo the decision once it has been made. (p. 104). Aronson described this in the bettor placing a $2 bet on a horse scenario. The decision was still revocable before placing the bet. Once the bet is placed, the bettor reduces the dissonance by convincing themselves that it is the right horse. (p. 104).

To prevent adverse outcomes such as this in the future, the company could establish a formal review process that includes other stakeholders. Allowing input from others before the decision becomes irrevocable is prudent as it has the potential to save the company from significant loss; it also fosters collaboration and builds a stronger team.

I would address three areas in my leadership practice: self-justification, commitment and consistency, and groupthink.

First, self-justification highlights the human instinct to protect itself from a poor image, public or private. Aronson describes self-justification as "the tendency to justify one's actions in order to maintain one's self-esteem" (p. 90). While justifying the mistakes may offer a sense of relief or even security, this feeling is only temporary. Instead of spending so much time and energy defending a bad decision, I have found that it is much more beneficial to admit and grow from each mistake. I must become transparent and accountable to help build trust within the team. By doing and being so, I encourage the team members to feel like they can also be transparent and accountable.

Next, commitment and consistency have inherently both good and bad applications. Once a person commits, they tend to stick with it. Couple that with consistency; it has lasting effects when these commitments lead to inner change. As in the example of the car salesman, he makes the customer's commitment to purchase a car to be a more personal experience. (Cialdini, 2009, p. 83). Similarly, I encourage team members to share their goals and set up review sessions at regular intervals to track progress. This transparency can help create accountability and allow team members to connect and support each other more personally.

Lastly, according to Janis Irving, groupthink occurs when group or groups follow a maladaptive decision-making process and start seeing themselves as invulnerable. The group believes the decision or direction it takes is the only correct one if they don't allow dissenting voices within the group to counter the group's norms. (Aronson, 2018, p. 151). A dissenting opinion may help the group discover and manage its potential biases and blind spots. It can also find solutions that are more effective and creative. My team became more assertive, adaptable, and better informed by implementing a process that invites and values dissenting opinions that differ from the typical agreement of the group's majority.

Discussion Prompt 1: With respect to the types of behaviors potentially induced by a state of cognitive dissonance, Aronson (Chapter 3 Self-Justification) points out the following: People are capable of rational, adaptive behavior, as well as dissonance-reducing behavior.

What are the behaviors (and limitations) associated with protecting our egos through dissonance reduction? Why might it be very important to admit our mistakes - and why is it that we are usually so reluctant or unable to do so? What steps could we take to facilitate the chances of learning from our mistakes?

“Indeed, how much we admire ourselves is directly related to how we think we are valued by others” (Aronson, 2018, pg. 35). We so badly want to protect our sense of self and ego. Given the prompt above, I could not help but come back to Chapter 2 and the central social motives in The Social Animal. Behaviors that protect our image through dissonance reduction, like changing cognitions to be more consistent with our ideas or adding cognitions that bridge the gap (Aronson, 2018, pg.60), can cause us to act irrationally. If we change cognitions, others may see us as inconsistent and unreliable. If we bridge the gap between ideas to make the idea fit, we may be seen as untrustworthy. Our desperation to maintain this facade by committing to our stance causes us to stray further from reality. The work we sometimes put ourselves through to convince ourselves we are right makes it difficult to admit when we are wrong. Cialdini states, “The evidence is clear that the more effort that goes into a commitment, the greater is its ability to influence the attitudes of the person who made it” (Cialdini, 2009, pg 73).

In order to understand our mistakes, we first must learn or realize we have made a mistake. Sometimes, this is easier said than done. After all, people who are reducing cognitive dissonance can display “...maladaptive behavior [that] can prevent them from learning essential facts or from finding real solutions to their problems” (Aronson, 2018). But when a mistake is discovered, our ability to admit it to ourselves and others in the face of internal struggle builds character and increases trust from others. Cognitive dissonance can be felt when we are pressured to be consistent. “If you do or say something that is difficult to justify externally, you will attempt to justify it internally by making your attitudes more consistent with what you did or said” (Aronson, 2018, pg. 77). To resist consistency pressures, Cialdini states, “we should listen for signals coming from two places within us: our stomachs and our heart of hearts” (Cialdini, 2009, pg. 95). Once the mistake is realized, either by stomach or heart, then we can start to understand the opposing side and change.

When I had first become an Assistant Headmaster, I was thrust into the position quickly after being a classroom teacher. I knew how to influence eight year olds and the members of my grade-level team and had a lot to learn about the nuances of an entire school population. The school was in its second year, and we had been announced as a failing school. The Headmaster saw me becoming, in his words, a “firefighter”. There were so many problems to solve, and not enough administration to solve it. We had not been able to hire more members of our team right away, and I thought it best to always be available, and put out “fires” as they ignited. As a former teacher, I knew the feeling of needing administrative support and not having it. When he explained to me that I would burn myself out and become less helpful if I did not slow down, I experienced cognitive dissonance. I told him I could not bear to ignore when teachers were calling, and I wanted to appear as a consistent support to teachers. Understanding what I felt, he took me to classrooms to observe teachers and discuss the systems that were failing and what we needed to do to fix them. In this case, being shown the error of my ways and coaching me in how to solve the problem proactively and not reactively were essential. He demonstrated that “The drive to be (and look) consistent constitutes a highly potent weapon of social influence, often causing us to act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own best interest” (Cialdini, 2009, pg. 53). The Consistency Principle had led me down a path of self destruction, and I am thankful my coach was able to help me understand my contradiction. I am glad to say that within the time our team was with the school, our rating went from a failing to a passing grade, and I was able to manage my time well.

Group confirmation is powerful and can be life altering. As an educator, I have had many people in my ear about which education is best. The Nation’s Report Card from the National Association of Educational Progress showed that in grades 4 and 8, reading scores have declined (Turner and Mehta, 2025). Politics aside, there is a lot to unpack here. Some people show conformity with this fact by agreeing with their current schooling situation-whatever that may be. Cognitive dissonance has some educators questioning standardized testing and their own teaching strategies. People will use their personal backgrounds, political affiliations, national data results, and opinions to drive their arguments towards public, private, online, or homeschool education. Regardless of which group a person is a part of, mistakes seem to always be made in the ‘other’ schools, never the one they believe in.

I believe that groupthink is rampant in education, and this is where mistakes take place on all sides. Some schools believe that their method of classic, traditional education is best and are unwilling to resort to new ideas. Other schools believe that adapting to the current trends is best and we must teach with current technology. Having seen data and results from several school populations, there are negatives and positives to each type of schooling. The same questions always seem to arise: If one type of education is best, why is it not available to all students? If X type of education is best, why does it cost so much? If a parent is paying X amount, why is it that their child is still struggling to read?

A school community is made up of families (students and caregivers), and educators (administrators, teachers, etc). As a former administrator and coach of teachers, I think that the video from Online PM Courses was incredibly useful in combating groupthink among a teaching population. The video discussed ten ways to prevent groupthink, and the number one suggestion was to have a diverse team. (Clayton, 2020) Differing opinions among teachers brings a healthy conversation and promotes the most useful tactic or strategy in the classroom. By bringing in social incentives, immediate rewards, and progress monitoring-as suggested by Sharot (Sharot, 2014), the strategies teachers come up with and observe from one another can be extremely effective. Sharot also described these three tactics as giving the individual the power of control- which is huge for a teacher. (Sharot, 2014). As a leader, I can be successful by facilitating these meetings and making sure teachers are accountable to one another and to their students. Accountability among coworkers is highly effective, and positive. Cialdini discussed how large consequences are ineffective, and many schools implement teacher rating systems that negatively punish teachers for poor performance.

Additional Resource:

Turner and Mehta. 2025. Nearly 5 years after schools closed, the nation gets a new report card.

Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/29/nx-s1-5270880/math-reading-covid-naep

Conformity: Internalization (Aronson, 2018)

“If we admire someone whom we perceive to be trustworthy and have good judgment, we accept the belief that he or she advocates and integrate it into our system of values” (Aronson, 2018, pg. 141). As I read Aronson, I was influenced as a leader with how he described internalization. If we are to convince others to follow our lead and to work hard to be their best selves, then they must admire who we are and what we are doing. Our actions speak louder than words as leaders, and leadership is a responsibility that none of us should take lightly. We influence others daily, and communicating to the heart of someone enough to have them internalize what you have shared with them is a gift. I know there are leaders that have influenced me in this way, and I hope to be able to do the same to my future teams and colleagues.

Commitments-Writing it Down (Cialdini, 2009)

In Influence, Cialdini stated that “Commitments are most effective when they are active, public, effortful, and viewed as internally motivated (uncoerced)” (Cialdini, 2009, pg. 95). Having taught children and teachers in handwriting and phonics, I was especially excited when he spoke of the power of writing (Cialdini, Ch 3). There is power in written word, and I believe it is responsible for all leaders to write instructions and follow up meetings with summaries. With the use of email, emailing teams expectations and maintaining a paper trail are incredibly important. I plan to use this theory to help train teachers to have students continue to write by hand and share work with parents. Teachers can use this theory to write how they will be accountable to their teams and students with homework checks and lesson planning.

Avoid Self-Justification (Aronson, 2018)

Aronson shared several historical examples of leaders who dangerously avoided dissonance through self-justification. They relied on people who were like them to agree with them, and thus spiral into poor decision making. Aronson states, “Historical examples show us that the way out of this process [self-justification] is for a leader to bring in skilled advisors from outside his or her inner circle, because the advisors will not be caught up in the need to reduce the dissonance created by the leader’s earlier decisions” (Aronson, 2018, pg. 105). This fact, paired with the insight from Clayton on diverse teams (Clayton, 2020), motivated me to be sure my teams are not entirely similar to me. Differing opinions are healthy to maintain effective leadership, and it is important to seek out a team that may challenge me.

Discussion Prompt 1

Cognitive dissonance can lead individuals to engage in various behaviors, particularly those aimed at protecting their self-esteem and ego through dissonance reduction. Behaviors associated with protecting our egos through dissonance reduction include rationalization, selective exposure, and minimization of importance (Aronson, 2018). For example, elective exposure is evidenced by how people often seek information supporting their beliefs or behaviors while avoiding contradictory information, limiting their exposure to potentially helpful perspectives. Also, people might downplay the significance of a mistake to minimize discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance. Limitations of dissonance-reducing behaviors include stunted learning, reinforcement of negative behaviors, and relationship strain. For instance, constantly defending poor choices often leads to repetitive bad behavior without learning from prior mistakes (Aronson, 2018).

Aronson (2018) accentuates that it is important to admit mistakes because they are a source of growth and learning and building trust. By acknowledging errors, people create opportunities for learning and improvement, encouraging self-reflection and fostering personal development. However, we are usually reluctant or unable to admit mistakes due to fear of judgment and threat to self-concept. We often fear negative evaluations from others or the impact on their self-image. We can facilitate learning from our mistakes by creating a safe environment (fostering a culture that values openness and views mistakes as learning opportunities rather than failures), practicing self-reflection to promote a growth mindset, and seeking feedback because constructive criticisms can reduce the fear associated with admitting mistakes (Aronson, 2018).

In my experience, one time it was relatively easy to admit a mistake was during a group project where I miscommunicated about deadlines. In that instance, the necessary conditions that facilitated my ability to face the truth included establishing an open dialogue where mistakes were discussed without blame, fostering mutual respect, and focusing on solutions by resolving the issue rather than dwelling on blame, as Pilette (2017) suggests. These conditions promoted a mindset that values honesty and growth, which are crucial for addressing lapses in judgment and fostering a collaborative atmosphere for learning.

Discussion Prompt 2

As a leader or project manager, understanding the dynamics of conformity, groupthink, and self-justification is critical for mitigating costly mistakes within a team. As a leader, I should promote open communication, diversity of view, and well-structured decision-making processes to avoid costly mistakes. Regularly checking in with team members through check-ins and anonymous feedback helps teams prevent oversight and promotes transparency (Aronson, 2018). Creating and maintaining diverse teams can help prevent groupthink. A diverse team from different backgrounds may trigger an avoidance of groupthink and ensure that decisions are critically thought out rather than merely accepted. This approach is further reinforced by clear decision-making guidelines, including risk review and alternatives, resulting in informed decisions rather than impulsive ones. Also, as a leader, I strive to foster accountability, self-awareness, and a culture of innovation rather than conformity. Finally, training employees on biases in decision-making and group dynamics enables them to avoid pitfalls that may lead to mistakes, lowering productivity. I can create a collaborative atmosphere that values open communication, diverse perspectives, and critical evaluation by implementing these strategies.

Discussion Prompt 3

Module 2 presented several concepts and theories that I will use to enhance my effectiveness as a leader and promote a healthy, productive, and motivated team environment. Three concepts or theories that will be helpful in my leadership include maintaining a questioning attitude, creating a team charter, and the theory of cognitive dissonance. Cialdini (2009) highlights the importance of questioning authority, particularly when blind obedience can lead to adverse outcomes. This can present unique challenges in military settings, such as the Navy, as following orders is paramount. Pilette (2017) states that developing a team charter establishes clear expectations, improves communication, and enhances trust within the group. I will create a team charter at the start of new projects or when forming teams. This collaborative approach encourages input from all members and ensures that everyone's voice is heard. Aronson's (2018) reformulation of cognitive dissonance emphasizes the connection to the self-concept. It suggests that discomfort arises when one's actions contradict one's self-image, leading to changes in behavior or attitudes to alleviate tension. I will encourage an environment where making mistakes is seen as an opportunity for learning rather than a failure.

References

Aronson, E. (2018). The Social Animal (12th ed.). Worth Publishers.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Revised ed.). Harper Business.

Pilette, P. C. (2017). Team charters: Mapping clearer communication. Nursing Management, 48(5), 52-55.

Pilette, P. C. (2017). Team charters: Mapping clearer communication. Nursing Management, 48(5), 52–55.

Dissonance reduction oftentimes leads to irrational or out of the box behavior on our part. Aronson mentions this by highlighting “No matter how smart they are, people who are in the midst of reducing dissonance are so involved with convincing themselves that they are right that they frequently end up behaving irrationally. By ‘irrational,’ I mean their maladaptive behavior can prevent them from learning essential facts or from finding real solutions to their problems (Aronson, E., p. 64). A lot of my experience comes from the realm of politics, simply because my undergrad was in government and my first master’s was in social justice and human rights. In the world of politics, there’s always going to be opposing viewpoints and arguments that may even be stronger than the beliefs that we have. I think that in these situations it’s important to step back and admit that you’ve never thought of the scenario like that before. It may be uncomfortable, because it often means that we’re admitting someone may be more knowledgeable on the subject. But I think that being able to say “you know what, you’re right. I didn’t even consider that” speaks volumes about yourself. I also think that steps we could take to facilitate the chances of learning from our mistakes would be to speak to a friend about the topic. A friend that you know will be unbiased when it’s time to tell you if you’re right or wrong. Desensitizing ourselves with someone we appreciate can help more than people realize.

I think I’ve always been fairly good at admitting mistakes and I think this is what has made me a good leader. Whenever I make a mistake, whether it be in life or in my career, I try to pinpoint the exact mistake as well as come up with a game-plan on how I’m going to address and hopefully fix the issue. I think this definitely helps me approach it less defensively as it really outlines the entirety of the situation.

This is an interesting situation and weirdly something that I always talk to my team about, especially when onboarding new people. Mistakes are going to happen, by everyone, and I like to foster the importance of taking accountability when that happens.

Conformity as a whole, I think, can make this a bit harder tan it needs to be. HoneHQ sums this up well by saying “Conformity in the workplace can be dangerous because it can lead to groupthink, where individuals prioritize group harmony over critical thinking and independent decision-making. This can result in a lack of innovation, creativity, and productivity, and can stifle individual contributions and perspectives.” (HoneHQ, 2023). Although I understand the importance of group harmony, I think it’s important to find a balance of it while still allowing direct reports to hold themselves accountable.

Aronson also covered this in a study and the results suggest “most people will go along to get along – unless they know that they will be held accountable for a dumb, compliant decision. (Aronson, E., p. 126).

I explicitly tell my team “If a mistake is made, please tell me as soon as you know. This will make it easier for me to help you come up with a game plan on how we can tackle and fix it together. If you don’t make me aware, it really could impact you negatively and I’d hate to have to go that route.” I think it fosters a sense of trust and care while also setting the standard of what could happen.

First, I would have to choose the theory of cognitive dissonance. I know this seems like a broad area of focus, but I think that it’s important to not only make your team aware of exactly what cognitive dissonance consists of, but also dissonance reduction and the behaviors that can stem from it. In the workplace there is always going to be different personality types. As leaders, it’s our responsibility to learn (and deal) with those personalities, but direct reports don’t always see it that way given that they’re not in a leadership position. Properly educating them on this can be eye opening in those situations of disagreement.

Second, I really enjoyed the focus on the quick fix in chapter 3 of Influence. Cialdini highlights how we “fall into the habit of being automatically consistent even in situations where it is not the sensible way to be. When it occurs unthinkingly, consistency can be disastrous” (Chialdini, p. 54). I think this is a good/quick mini lesson to relay to our teams, even in terms of simply reading an email. I always tell my team “Read top to bottom before you hit that reply button”. We’re oftentimes so much on autopilot (without even realizing) that the reminder of slowing down to minimize mistakes is so needed.

Lastly, I think the topic of conformity, specifically with social norms, can really benefit a team to be educated on. Social norms have been used for so long, and in so many different forms. Aronson highlights both descriptive and injunctive means of social norms (Aronson, E., p. 129). I think educating the team on social norms as well as highlighting the importance of reaching out in times where they are confused instead of simply following the lead of others can be extremely helpful.

Aronson, E. (1972). The social animal. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA13398978Links to an external site.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice. Prentice Hall.

HoneHQ. (2024, May 21). The Dangers of conformity in the workplace - HoneHQ. HoneHQ. https://honehq.com/resources/blog/the-dangers-of-conformity-in-the-workplace/

Discussion Prompt 1: With respect to the types of behaviors potentially induced by a state of cognitive dissonance, Aaronson (Chapter 3 Self-Justification) points out the following: People are capable of rational, adaptive behavior, as well as dissonance-reducing behavior.

Aronson speaks of cognitive dissonance as the clash of two motives. When speaking directly in regarding to irrational behavior he states, “Sometimes our motivation to be right and our motivation to believe we are right work in the same direction: We seek information (say, about the risks of smoking) and pay attention” (The Social Animal, Chapter 3, Page 64). When thinking about our ego, I think this links directly to his statement on our motivation to be right. Despite knowing what we may know, we may still want to be right. Insert your ego that likes to be right and engages in bad habits. Despite this, it is very important to admit our mistakes because it is often our irrational side that wants to be right and that is not protecting our rational thoughts that actually are more protective or correct. Let’s use the generic example of smoking. It is rationale to know you may get lung cancer. It is irrational to think that it’s not that bad if you smoke light cigarettes (the second thought you are right and supporting your ego). You would be better off admitting your mistake and giving up smoking.

It is very hard for individuals to admit their mistakes or not continue in their beliefs. Aronson speaks of the dissonance theory whereby people will remember arguments that agree with their own beliefs (The Social Animal, Chapter 3, Page 64). When you have an innate practically hardwired mind to support your own beliefs, it takes humility and training to change your typical responses and reasoning. Steps that I would take to change my framework to be aware of my cognitive dissonance and be proactive would be to first, do what I have already stated. Be conscious that I have a bias and that I will always seek information that will support my original beliefs and that I need to actively make the choice to seek information in a more balanced way. Secondly, I would make small changes to ensure that they were realistic and attainable.

An example from my experience where it was easy for me to admit that I had made a mistake was at work I had a colleague that had specifically requested to work with a school team. I oversee assigning all caseloads. I assumed I would have the memory and did not write it down and later forgot and assigned an alternate BCBA to the school, and she lost the opportunity. I apologized to her and let her know I was at fault for not making note of her request. I think there were a couple of factors that made this easier and non-defensive situation. I knew there would be opportunities in the future where I could do better and improve my behavior, and she could work with the school again. I also knew that she is a very approachable and kind person, and we have a good working relationship so she would respond to me well when I told her the news. It also probably lay firmly in the fact that it is not something I have strong beliefs or habits built into.

I would like to begin by discussing groupthink. The concept of ensuring that you have the group agreement that is maintained and considered is paramount in keeping cohesion within the workplace (The Social Animal, Chapter 4, Page 114). While groupthink can be a risk, as a team leader, I have always utilized team “buy in” in order to drive my team and make them feel valued. The team members will feel that not only are they valued but they will have a shared understanding of their roles and responsibilities. I would also use a checks and balances system prior to group decision making to ensure that all individuals are continuing to be heard without bias. This would be the number one priority, ensuring there was balanced within the group which starts from the beginning.

In thinking of self-justification and knowing that individuals have the tendency to justify their own behavior or their own beliefs (The Social Animal, Chapter 3, Page 58) I would employ strategies where individuals receive feedback not only from their direct supervisor but also from their peers and subordinates as a tool for improvement as opposed to criticism. I would also encourage fact and data-based decision making so that an individual would have to provide data in order to support a decision they would like to make so that it could not be self-justifying. Lastly, I would review previous decisions in upcoming meetings as a, “what worked?” vs punitive measure to ensure that the decisions that we make are effective and for myself as a leader behind the scenes to catch any patterns.

As stated, there will always be mistakes no matter what role an individual holds. It is important that we can all view ourselves objectively and I think this most importantly comes from working together collaboratively as a team but also welcoming feedback and being willing to learn from that feedback.

With respect to building my leadership expertise, the first thing that I would like to discuss is creating a team charter. I believe it previously aligned well with some of my values but is much more concrete and when Pilette provides the framework of vision, values, team commitment/norms, and collaborative accountability I felt that I had a concrete way to work with a team to develop the framework (Team charters: mapping clearer communication, Page 53). In my leadership practice, I utilize a lot of team collaboration (or attempt to), but it is loosely run with a lot of times where I ask for feedback or input and only a few typical individuals choose to participate. I think ensuring that all of the team members have agrees on these four elements it would increase collaboration.

When Cialdini spoke of commitment the one item that stuck out the most to me was the Daniel Howard study whereby simply asking an individual “how are you doing?” prior to asking for them for charity increased donations. I associate this with pairing in my workplace and it is typically utilized with the individuals that we do therapy with. When thinking about my leadership style I think this could also be utilized and ensured that it occurs at the beginning of every conversation. I understand that we all hope that it does but sometimes you forget to do it with the people you see too often or sometimes I noticed, I forget to do it with my superiors.

Lastly, I would like to circle back to the overall concept of cognitive dissonance. While it is such a simple concept, it has stuck with me to really be conscious of my own beliefs and if they are rational or not and how much I am doing to try and validate my own beliefs and support my own ego. Some of the studies that were discussed were surprising to me, such as when Aronson discussed the Indian psychologist who discovered that individuals in a neighboring safe town of an earthquake had made up lies about an impending flood (The Social Animal, Chapter 3, Page 59). If our brains are so quick to validate our fears why would mine be any different? It is confirming that I need to be conscious of my biases and my beliefs.

Prompt 1: Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Justification

As Aronson (2018) describes, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort one feels when having two opposing beliefs or when behavior is inconsistent with the beliefs. Such discomfort usually results in the ego-protective behaviors of rationalization denial or dissonance reduction to alleviate that discomfort. The main behavior attached to this is self-justification (psychology), or bending facts/reinterpreting circumstances to fit their actions, reducing the dissonance (Aronson, 2018). But one of the drawbacks of this behavior is that it can be counterproductive to growth and learning. When self-justification becomes the goal, we avoid taking ownership of what we did wrong, depriving ourselves of valuable lessons to rectify our mistakes.

First and foremost, owning up to mistakes is essential in all aspects of life. By admitting mistakes, people make themselves vulnerable to external feedback and evidence, ultimately leading to betterment and progress. However, this is not easy because accepting failure threatens our self-esteem, and we fear being judged negatively by others. Educators should encourage students to adopt a growth mindset (Dweck 2006) that promotes viewing mistakes as learning tools while minimizing self-threatening perceptions of mistakes. Also, fomenting a work culture that values openness and vulnerability could help people feel more comfortable acknowledging their mistakes.

Once having worked in an environment where it felt OK to admit mistakes. I once miscalculated a project timeline, but my team encouraged open discussion and discussion about solutions instead of blame. This required the right conditions, including a culture of trust, where team members felt they could speak up and share without fear of retribution, and a shared mentality where we collectively had each other's backs and focused on team success over individual ego.

Question 2. Preventing Avoidable Mistakes in Leadership

Like all corporate initiatives, mistakes are simply the cost of doing business. Yet, there are strategies to reduce both their frequency and their effects. Understanding concepts like conformity and groupthink (Aronson, 2018). "In a groupthink situation, members prioritize conformity over rational division, and groupthink can result in illogical decision-making without critically evaluating ideas," Davis said. I can fight this by creating an environment that invites new perspectives and skepticism. This means looking for input from everyone on the team and treating dissenting opinions as invitations for deeper analysis and conversation.

Furthermore, self-justification inhibits leaders from recognizing and correcting mistakes. In response to this, fostering an environment of accountability and ongoing education is critical. Leaders can model this by owning up to their mistakes and showing others how they learned and improved. Structured decision-making processes, like decision matrices or regular review meetings, can also help to ensure that decisions are made using evidence and input from multiple perspectives rather than groupthink or individual biases.

A culture that emphasizes transparency, critical thinking, and learning over self-justification will help leaders and their teams avoid the traps of conformity, leading to greater effectiveness and innovation.

Prompt 3: Leadership Expertise Building

Three Big Ideas from Module 2: Growth Mindset, Transformational Leadership, and Emotional Intelligence. Each is malleable to improve leadership practice. According to Dweck (2006), a growth mindset is the notion that one can develop abilities through hard work and effort. Growth mindset leaders are more inclined to take on challenges, persevere when things get tough, and understand that effort leads to mastery. Leaders can nurture this mindset in a team, prompting improvement and resilience.

Inspiring and motivating followers characterize transformational leadership to achieve performance beyond their self-interests (Bass & Riggio, 2006). It can be translated into practice through leadership through vision, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transformational leaders foster an atmosphere of dialogue, which opens the way to activity for creativity and passion.

Goleman (1995) emphasizes the importance of emotional intelligence being the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions and the feelings of others. They have mastered the complex web of interpersonal relationship dynamics and built strong, empathetic ones with their team. Leaders who develop skills related to self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills are better equipped to perform and create a positive organizational culture.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Reluctance to Admit Mistakes

Cognitive dissonance arises when individuals experience psychological discomfort due to inconsistencies between their beliefs and actions. To reduce this discomfort, people often engage in self-justification—rationalizing their behaviors rather than acknowledging their mistakes. This allows individuals to maintain a consistent and positive self-image, even in the face of conflicting evidence (Aronson, 2018, p. 109). However, while this strategy protects the ego, it can significantly limit personal growth and the ability to learn from errors.

One of the primary limitations of self-justification is that it promotes the escalation of commitment. Aronson (2018) notes that individuals often double down on poor decisions to avoid admitting failure, leading to continued investment in unsuccessful endeavors (p. 133). This behavior is particularly problematic in professional environments, where mistakes may have significant consequences. The reluctance to admit errors is compounded by social and psychological pressures that frame mistakes as threats to competence and self-esteem.

Andy Luttrell (2021) provides additional insight into this phenomenon in his video, Cognitive Dissonance Theory: A Crash Course. He explains that individuals often alter their perception of reality to justify their behavior, thereby avoiding the discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance (1:50). This avoidance can create a cycle where mistakes are rationalized instead of corrected, ultimately hindering progress and innovation.

Addressing cognitive dissonance requires strategies that encourage self-awareness and accountability. According to Aronson (2018), promoting an environment where mistakes are treated as learning opportunities rather than failures can help individuals feel more comfortable acknowledging their errors (p. 201). Organizational practices such as post-mortem analyses, constructive feedback loops, and the promotion of a growth mindset are essential for facilitating honest reflection and continuous improvement.

In my first role as a manager at a boutique gym, I encountered significant challenges in balancing my responsibilities with my personal relationships with employees. One of my biggest mistakes was approaching management as an extension of friendship rather than leadership. I wanted to foster a positive work environment and ensure that everyone felt valued. However, this approach led to unintended consequences, particularly regarding staffing decisions.

The gym was overstaffed when I took over, and rather than addressing this head-on, I attempted to distribute hours in a way that would satisfy everyone. This was an emotional decision rather than a strategic one, and ultimately, it prolonged the financial difficulties that some employees faced. By avoiding difficult conversations and failing to act decisively, I contributed to the dissatisfaction of the trainers, who felt misled about their earning potential.

What made it easier for me to finally admit my mistake was recognizing that my actions, while well-intentioned, were not actually helping my employees. The necessary condition for me to accept my error was a shift in perspective: rather than seeing my decision as a reflection of my character, I viewed it as a learning opportunity. This shift allowed me to analyze the situation objectively, take corrective action, and improve my approach to leadership.

Mistakes are inevitable in corporate initiatives, yet many can be mitigated by addressing psychological biases such as groupthink, self-justification, commitment bias, and blind obedience to authority. These biases impair decision-making and inhibit adaptability, making it imperative for project managers to implement strategies that encourage critical thinking, accountability, and ethical leadership.

When individuals suppress dissent to maintain group cohesion, groupthink leads to flawed decisions that go unchallenged (Aronson, 2018, p. 184). Employees may hesitate to speak up due to the implicit pressure to conform, even when they recognize potential flaws in a plan (p. 187). To counteract groupthink, project managers should encourage constructive dissent by inviting outsiders in, ensuring that alternative viewpoints are actively considered. (Clayton, 2021, 9:10) Additionally, psychological safety is crucial, splitting employees into sub-groups to help employees feel secure in voicing concerns without fear of professional repercussions (Clayton, 2021, 8:27).

Self-justification further compounds organizational errors, as individuals rationalize poor decisions rather than acknowledging mistakes (Aronson, 2018, p. 133). This is closely tied to escalation of commitment, where leaders persist in failing strategies to preserve their self-image (p. 145). To mitigate this, organizations should conduct structured post-mortems, reframing mistakes as learning opportunities rather than failures (p. 178). Tali Sharot (2017) reinforces this point, arguing that positive reinforcement is more effective than fear-based motivation when encouraging behavioral change (5:55).

Commitment bias causes individuals to adhere rigidly to past decisions even when new evidence suggests the need for change (Cialdini, 2009, p. 59). This effect is powerful when commitments have been made publicly or require significant effort (p. 68).

Blind obedience to authority exacerbates organizational failures, as individuals comply with directives without critically evaluating their validity (Cialdini, 2009, p. 180). Milgram’s obedience studies demonstrate how perceived authority can override moral reasoning, leading individuals to execute unethical actions. Organizations should train employees in constructive disobedience to counteract this, empowering them to question ineffective or unethical directives (p. 176). A culture of inquiry over compliance fosters a more ethical, adaptable, and resilient workforce.

To effectively prevent costly mistakes, project managers must establish a culture of psychological safety, independent evaluation, and continuous learning. Encouraging critical analysis, supporting open dialogue, and leveraging structured reassessments ensure that teams remain agile, strategic, and forward-thinking. By addressing cognitive biases, organizations enhance their capacity for informed, ethical, and adaptive decision-making in an increasingly complex business landscape.

Self-justification is one of the most significant barriers to professional growth, where individuals rationalize poor decisions instead of learning from them (Aronson, 2018, p. 104). Leaders who fail to acknowledge mistakes often create a culture of defensiveness, making employees hesitant to take risks or admit failures. In contrast, transformational leaders must embrace mistakes as learning opportunities (p. 177).

To integrate this into my leadership approach, I will promote a feedback-driven environment where mistakes are debriefed rather than punished. Regular team reflections and post-mortem discussions will help reinforce that growth comes from continuous learning, not from avoiding accountability. By modeling self-awareness and adaptability, I can create a team that sees mistakes as stepping stones to progress rather than personal failures.

2. Applying the Consistency Principle to Strengthen Team Engagement

The consistency principle states that people strive to align their behaviors with past commitments to maintain a coherent self-image (Cialdini, 2009, p. 60). While this can lead to stubbornness in decision-making, it can also be used positively to reinforce engagement and accountability.

The 365 Financial Analyst video (2022) explains to build a motivated and professional workplace culture; I will need to implement small, meaningful commitments that encourage employees to actively engage and take ownership of their roles (3:35). I will leverage this by incorporating team-based goal-setting, where employees set both personal and professional growth objectives. This will ensure employees feel invested in their development, making work less of a chore and more of a platform for achievement.

3. Ethical Authority Management: Encouraging Critical Thinking and Ownership

While authority is necessary for structure and leadership, transformational leaders must balance authority with empowerment to avoid creating a rigid, compliance-driven environment (Cialdini, 2009, p. 180). Creativity and innovation suffer when employees unthinkingly follow orders without questioning effectiveness (p. 181).

I will promote autonomy within a structured framework to create an enjoyable and professional work culture. Mike Clayton (2021) explains that leaders must actively encourage dissenting opinions to prevent groupthink and inspire better decision-making. Even if that means inviting outsiders into these meetings to give the team an outside perspective on the situation (9:10). I will encourage collaborative discussions, allow employees to voice concerns, and emphasize critical thinking over passive compliance. Employees should feel comfortable respectfully challenging ideas, knowing their input is valuable to the team’s success.

psych (TH)

image1.png