By Dr Tom Hitchcock, founder of Mr Purple (LinkedIn)
Cognitive dissonance mistakes are peculiar creatures. We can spot them in somebody else from across a car park, yet miss our own while they are sitting in the passenger seat. The problem is not usually a lack of intelligence. It is the very human urge to protect the story we tell ourselves about who we are.
If I believe I am a fair leader, a careful operator or a sensible buyer, evidence to the contrary creates discomfort. I can inspect the evidence, or I can renovate the story. Renovation is often quicker. Learning is usually better.
What cognitive dissonance mistakes look like
Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort created when our beliefs, decisions or behaviour do not fit neatly together. An Australian Defence publication describes the theory as the strain that appears when actions conflict with beliefs. That tension is not proof that a person is dishonest. It is a signal that the mind has some explaining to do.
The explanation can be useful: I made the best decision available with limited information. It can also become a hiding place: the plan was brilliant, the team simply failed to understand it.
At work and in life, the pattern often sounds ordinary:
- We defend a decision more fiercely after it begins to fail.
- We call uncomfortable feedback uninformed before examining it.
- We remember the evidence that supported us and misplace the rest.
- We judge our intention, while everyone else experiences our impact.
- We keep investing because stopping would force us to admit the first investment was poor.
No villain is required. Just a brain with a press office.
Why a capable mind can miss obvious evidence
A strong self image helps us act with confidence. It also gives us something to defend. When evidence threatens that identity, the easiest response may be to reinterpret the evidence rather than update the identity.
This is where confirmation bias often joins the party. The Australian Law Reform Commission explains that cognitive biases can lead people to rely on information that confirms existing beliefs and opinions. The lesson travels well beyond legal decision making. Once we have chosen a story, we naturally notice witnesses for the defence.
Experience does not make us immune. Sometimes it gives us a larger vocabulary for explaining why we could not possibly be wrong. Intelligence can examine a mistake, but it can also become an accomplished escape artist.
The useful question is not, am I biased? We all bring shortcuts, preferences and prior beliefs to decisions. A better question is, where might my preferred story be doing the driving?
The small cost that becomes a large one
Refusing to see a mistake protects us from a sharp moment of discomfort. Then the interest begins.
A weak process remains untouched. A strained relationship gets another layer of misunderstanding. A project absorbs more time because nobody wants to question the original decision. A team learns that candour is welcome only when it agrees with the boss.
The first mistake might be small. The expensive part is often the maintenance contract we take out on it.
This is why Mistakeology treats mistakes as data rather than ammunition. Data asks what happened, what conditions shaped it and what should change. Ammunition asks who can be blamed. One creates movement. The other creates armour.
I wrote more about that shift in why I chose to study mistakes. The aim is not to celebrate every error. It is to stop wasting the information inside one.
A practical test for the story in your head
When a decision feels oddly personal, pause before defending it. Try this short inspection:
- Name the claim. Write the belief in one plain sentence. For example, our new process is helping customers.
- Name the discomfort. What fact, comment or result does not fit that claim?
- Argue the other case. What would a thoughtful person who disagrees with you point to?
- Look for missing voices. Who experiences the decision but has not been asked about it?
- Choose a test. What small, observable action could prove or disprove your current explanation?
The Australian Public Service Commission warns that confirmation bias can cause a decision maker to favour supporting information and discount what does not fit. A written test helps because it moves the argument out of the private courtroom in our head. The goal is not instant confession. The goal is better evidence.
How leaders make truth less expensive
People calculate the social price of honesty before they speak. If the price is embarrassment, exclusion or a brisk lesson in hierarchy, useful information will arrive late or not at all.
Leaders can lower that price with a few habits:
- Ask what might prove us wrong before asking whether everyone agrees.
- Thank the person who brings awkward evidence, especially when the evidence stings.
- Separate the quality of a decision from the worth of the person who made it.
- Review assumptions as well as results.
- Change course visibly when the facts change.
A leader who says, I defended that too quickly, gives everybody else permission to examine rather than perform. That is not weakness. It is operational honesty.
There is also a quiet distinction worth keeping. Not every disagreement means somebody has uncovered your hidden mistake. Sometimes people simply read the same facts differently. Curiosity lets you test the difference without turning the conversation into a duel.
Discomfort is a clue, not a verdict
Cognitive dissonance does not tell us which belief is wrong. It tells us that something does not fit. The discomfort might reveal a mistaken decision, an incomplete fact, a clumsy action or a value we have not been living.
So, when the urge to explain arrives at full speed, let it idle for a moment. Ask what your self image is trying to protect. Then ask what the evidence could teach you if protection was not the first job.
Your mistakes do not need a public execution. They need a decent interview.
If you want a practical place to begin, try the Wobble Map. It helps turn the thing that feels uncomfortable into something visible, discussable and useful.
Common questions
Is cognitive dissonance the same as being dishonest?
No. Cognitive dissonance is discomfort created by inconsistency. Dishonesty involves deliberate deception, while dissonance can operate without conscious intent.
Why do smart people still defend poor decisions?
Intelligence can examine evidence, but it can also produce persuasive explanations that protect identity and prior choices. Capability does not remove bias.
How can I challenge a colleague without making them defensive?
Ask about the evidence and the shared outcome, rather than attacking their character. A small question such as what would change our view creates room for inquiry.
Does changing my mind damage credibility?
Usually the opposite, when the change is explained plainly. Updating a decision because the evidence changed shows that learning matters more than theatre.
Leave a Reply