From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.10.003Get rights and content

Abstract

It is not always possible for leaders, teams, and organizations to practice what they preach. Misalignment between words and deeds can invite harsh interpersonal consequences, such as distrust and moral condemnation, which have negative knock-on effects throughout organizations. Yet the interpersonal consequences of such misalignment are not always severe, and are sometimes even positive. This paper presents a new model of when and why audiences respond negatively to those who “say one thing but do another.” We propose that audiences react negatively if they (a) perceive a high degree of misalignment (i.e., perceive low “behavioral integrity”), and (b) interpret such misalignment as a claim to an undeserved moral benefit (i.e., interpret it as hypocrisy). Our model integrates disparate research findings about factors that influence how audiences react to misalignment, and it clarifies conceptual confusion surrounding word-deed misalignment, behavioral integrity, and hypocrisy. We discuss how our model can inform unanswered questions, such as why people fail to practice what they preach despite the risk of negative consequences. Finally, we consider practical implications for leaders, proposing that anticipating and managing the consequences of misalignment will be more effective than trying to avoid it altogether.

Section snippets

Negative interpersonal consequences

“Saying one thing but doing another” can have a variety of negative interpersonal consequences. The same transgression can spark harsher moral condemnation and punitive sentiment when it is inconsistent with values the transgressor has previously endorsed than when it is not (e.g., Effron, Jackman, Markus, Muramoto, & Muluk, 2018; Laurent, Clark, Walker, & Wiseman, 2013; Powell & Smith, 2012) – an inconsistency penalty in judgments of wrongdoing (Effron, Lucas, & O'Connor, 2015). Even minor

Theoretical model

We propose that when an audience witnesses an actor saying one thing but doing another, the audience asks itself two sets of questions, whether implicitly or explicitly. First, are the words and deeds misaligned (and if so, how much)? – and second, why are the words and deeds misaligned? The first question is about the extent to which inconsistency is perceived and the second is about how it is interpreted. Whereas perception refers to the detection of a stimulus (Colman, 2015), interpretation

Word-deed misalignment

Word-deed misalignment (“misalignment” for short) occurs when a person says and does different things (Simons, 2002). It is an objective description of behavior rather than a subjective perception. Misalignment itself is neither good nor bad, and the term conveys no information about a person’s motives or character. The relationship between words and deeds falls on a continuum of misalignment. For example, Ron Shaich’s decision to lay off cashiers and automate their job is at least somewhat

When do people perceive words and deeds as misaligned?

Having distinguished among key constructs, and done a deep dive into what counts as hypocrisy, we now turn to the first psychological process in our model: perceiving the misalignment (see Fig. 1). Before people grapple with whether to interpret word-deed misalignment as hypocrisy, they must determine whether, and how much, the words and deeds are misaligned (i.e., whether an actor has displayed low BI). Sometimes, identifying misalignment is easy because words and deeds are blatantly

When do people interpret misalignment as hypocrisy?

We now turn to the second psychological process in our model: interpreting the misalignment (see Fig. 1). Once an audience has perceived that an actor’s words and deeds are misaligned, what determines whether they interpret the misalignment as hypocritical? Research has documented several factors (see Table 2), which support our argument that people think of hypocrisy as claiming an undeserved moral benefit.

Summary of theoretical model

According to our model, an actor’s word-deed misalignment is more likely to provoke negative reactions from an audience when (a) the audience perceives the actor’s misalignment, and (b) the audience interprets it as hypocrisy (see Fig. 1). We have now reviewed a number of factors that influence these perceptions and interpretations, and that should thus affect how negatively audiences react to word-deed misalignment. An important contribution of the model is to clarify the distinctions and

Why is misalignment so prevalent?

Given that word-deed misalignment’s interpersonal consequences can be so negative, its apparent prevalence in organizations is striking. One explanation is that many people are actually motivated by hypocrisy: They want to reap the benefits of feeling or appearing moral without paying the requisite costs (Batson, 2002, Batson, 2016, Kurzban, 2010). Evidence for this explanation comes from laboratory experiments in which participants allocate resources selfishly despite simultaneously striving

Practical implications

“Walk your talk,” leaders are advised (e.g., Kouzes and Posner, 2011, Simons, 2008); in other words, minimize misalignment. However, given that some misalignment is inevitable in managing the complexities of organizations – and can even be strategic and beneficial – this is easier said than done. An alternative is to avoid words and let deeds speak for themselves. However, given the power of words to inspire followers (Bass, 1999, Burns, 1978), we do not recommend that leaders avoid espousing

Conclusion

When individuals, teams, or organizations fail to practice what they preach, they are often penalized with negative interpersonal reactions, such as distrust and moral condemnation, which can snowball into organizational problems like poor performance, employee turnover, and deviant behavior. Yet audiences who witness word-deed misalignment do not always react negatively, and sometimes even react positively. Given the virtual impossibility of keeping one’s words and deeds perfectly aligned –

References (164)

  • E.S. Focella et al.

    Vicarious hypocrisy: Bolstering attitudes and taking action after exposure to a hypocritical ingroup member

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2016)
  • J.J. Jordan et al.

    Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling

    Psychological Science

    (2017)
  • T.A. Kreps et al.

    “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations

    Research in Organizational Behavior

    (2011)
  • J. Lammers

    Abstraction increases hypocrisy

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2012)
  • J.-E. Lönnqvist et al.

    Moral hypocrisy: Impression management or self-deception?

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2014)
  • J.-E. Lönnqvist et al.

    On why hypocrisy thrives: Reasonable doubt created by moral posturing can deter punishment

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2015)
  • D. Abrams et al.

    A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to ingroup leaders

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2013)
  • M.D. Alicke

    Culpable control and the psychology of blame

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2000)
  • M.D. Alicke et al.

    Hypocrisy: What counts?

    Philosophical Psychology

    (2013)
  • D.L. Ames et al.

    Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    (2015)
  • E. Aronson et al.

    Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1991)
  • B.E. Ashforth et al.

    Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity

    Academy of Management Review

    (1993)
  • E. Balcetis

    Where the motivation resides and self-deception hides: How motivated cognition accomplishes self-deception

    Social and Personality Psychology Compass

    (2009)
  • E. Balcetis et al.

    See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2006)
  • J. Barden et al.

    “Saying one thing and doing another”: Examining the impact of event order on hypocrisy judgments of others

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (2005)
  • J. Barden et al.

    Order of actions mitigates hypocrisy judgments for ingroup more than outgroup members

    Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

    (2014)
  • B.M. Bass

    Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership

    European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

    (1999)
  • C.D. Batson

    Justice motivation and moral motivation

  • C.D. Batson

    Moral motivation: A closer look

  • C.D. Batson et al.

    In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • C.D. Batson et al.

    Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1999)
  • T.E. Becker

    Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness

    Academy of Management Review

    (1998)
  • Y. Bhatti et al.

    Political hypocrisy: The effect of political scandals on candidate evaluations

    Acta Politica

    (2013)
  • I. Blanken et al.

    A meta-analytic review of moral licensing

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (2015)
  • G.V. Bodenhausen et al.

    Attention, perception, and social cognition

  • E. Boxenbaum et al.

    Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling: Concept evolution and theoretical challenges

    The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism

    (2017)
  • P. Bromley et al.

    From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world

    Academy of Management Annals

    (2012)
  • N. Brunsson

    The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations

    (1989)
  • Bryan, B. (2015). Panera CEO: Robots will replace our labor “like the sun comes up in the morning”. Business Insider....
  • R. Buehler et al.

    Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1994)
  • J.M. Burns

    Leadership

    (1978)
  • W.C. Carlos et al.

    Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2017)
  • B.B. Caza et al.

    From synchronizing to harmonizing: the process of authenticating multiple work identities

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2018)
  • I. Choi et al.

    Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2000)
  • A.M. Colman

    Oxford dictionary of psychology

    (2015)
  • J. Cooper et al.

    Multiple meanings of communicative acts in the reduction of vicarious cognitive dissonance

  • M. Cording et al.

    Walking the talk: A multistakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance

    Academy of Management Perspectives

    (2014)
  • L. Cosmides et al.

    Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (2013)
  • R. Crisp et al.

    Hypocrisy and moral seriousness

    American Philosophical Quarterly

    (1994)
  • S. Culbert

    Beyond bullsh*t: Straight-talk at work

    (2008)
  • Cited by (66)

    • Demeaning extrinsic motivation leads to increased perceptions of hypocrisy

      2024, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
    • Going deep into a leader's integrity: A systematic review and the way forward

      2023, European Management Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, the theory explains that showing integrity in communities where the social norms support (dis)integrity, stinging to the super-norm of integrity, will bring positive consequences (Gosling & Huang, 2009; Scheetz & Fogarty, 2019). In the opposite case, in societies where the social norms support integrity, (dis)integrity will bring negative consequences (Effron, Markus, Jackman, Muramoto, & Muluk, 2018; Greenbaum et al., 2015). Mean people react more severely to what is different from their existing norms either in a positive or negative manner (Moore et al., 2019).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text