Why employees pretend to embrace company values

Applause that reveals very little

The company announces that courage is paramount. At the meeting, everyone nods in agreement. Afterward, employees say the last person to challenge the decision has lost an important project. At the next company event, they talk about their courage with the same enthusiasm. In this example scenario, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the stated value, but the discrepancy between public declaration and private belief. The organization sees agreement, while employees see a role they must play so as not to jeopardize their position. Hewlin called this phenomenon "conformity facades". It's about presenting yourself as a person who shares organizational values and beliefs, even though their actual views differ. This should not be confused with every form of adaptation. You can follow standards for professional communication without liking all the company's decisions. A facade arises when a person feels the need to present conformity even in what they claim to think and value. Hewlin, 2003. The difference between professional behavior and conformity facade is subtle. An employee does not have to share all of their colleagues' beliefs to perform their duties conscientiously and show respect. They may also consciously keep some views private. The problem arises when an employee feels that maintaining their position requires them to actively present other people's values as their own. For example, they publicly praise a policy they personally consider harmful because opposition is associated with a loss of opportunity. It is therefore worth asking not only about differences of opinion but also about the cost of speaking candidly and the freedom to do so. Disagreement with the organization is not itself a facade; the issue is pressure to perform complete identification.

Why people choose apparent agreement

Work provides income, contacts and opportunities for growth. If disclosure of the difference is likely to jeopardize those resources, pretending is seen as a reasonable self-protection strategy. A new member of the team may first observe what is allowed to be said. An employee in an insecure employment situation may feel unable to risk a public disagreement. It's worth considering this context before we judge the facade as simple dishonesty. The behavior may result from an imbalance of power, not a desire to manipulate the environment. Research by Hewlin, as well as Hewlin, Kim, and Song, analyzes, among other things, the conditions under which facades are created and the importance of job insecurity. They do not imply that every employee who fears losing their job is hiding their values. However, they show that authenticity is not solely an individual decision made in isolation from context. The organization helps determine the cost of disclosing a mismatch. Hewlin, 2009 Hewlin et al., 2016.

Apparent agreement prevents organizations from learning

If everyone says what they think is expected, leaders receive a more uniform picture than reality warrants. Leaders may think that the way the organization operates is right for everyone because they do not hear any objections. In our example, further declarations of courage reinforce the impression that the value is widely shared. At the same time, people learn that they must protect the public narrative from uncomfortable examples. This mechanism may cut off an organization from the information needed to correct its own practices. It's important to distinguish the facade of conformity from the silence resulting from the mistaken belief that everyone else endorses the norm. In the first case, a person may know perfectly well that their colleagues are also performing conformity. Still, everyone maintains the performance because it's about safety or a reward. That distinction matters when deciding what to do. Just revealing that others have similar doubts may not be enough if the organization continues to punish people who openly express those doubts. The leader may not notice the facade because they receive mostly confirmation of their own image of the company. The more visible loyalty is rewarded, the more difficult it is to hear about the costs of its practices. Employees can learn to use expected words, although their daily experience remains different. Then a survey based solely on awareness of the organization's stated values produces an uninformative picture. It is more useful to ask about situations where a doubt, disagreement or limitation could have been raised. Did the superior's reaction encourage further discussion? Was the criticism of the solution treated as a lack of commitment to the company? The responses help to assess the conditions for genuine participation, rather than merely measure the effectiveness of an organization's official language.

What is an obligation—and what remains a belief

A company has the right to set standards of work-related behavior: honesty, respect for people, customer service, or safety. But it cannot require personal enthusiasm for every slogan. It helps to translate values into actions. Cooperation can mean giving information on time rather than having to spend their free evenings with the team. Courage can mean raising a risk and explaining the evidence rather than a display of confidence. Specificity makes it easier to honestly agree on expectations without evaluating an employee's inner identity. A person who feels a difference can start by talking about practice: "We're talking about openness, but I don't know where I can challenge a decision before I implement it." It's less abstract than a debate about whether the company really believes in its values. This makes it possible to see if there's room for change. However, the employee should not be ordered to be completely honest without taking into account the risks. The choice of how much to disclose remains the employee's decision and the organization should first create credible conditions for the conversation.

How leaders can recognize their own role

It's worth taking a look at the reaction to the first difference. Does the leader ask questions or immediately explain why the employee misunderstood the values? Are those challenging the solution still receiving responsible tasks? Can an employee reject this interpretation while remaining a full member of the group? The answers can be found in the decisions made after the meeting, not just in the opening statement. If the objection is costly, employees can provide more and more tailored statements, but less and less useful information. Change also requires clarity as to the boundaries of the discussion. The team may have binding rules of conduct that are a condition for cooperation, and at the same time allow different opinions on how to achieve the objectives. Not every decision needs to be negotiated together, but the reasoning should be clear. An employee may hear that their proposal will not be accepted without also being told that raising the issue was itself inappropriate. This distinction helps to reduce the need to pretend to agree. On the other hand, if the discrepancy relates to fundamental values, an honest discussion may lead to recognition of a lasting mismatch. Not every difference needs to be addressed by a slogan about flexibility or another demand for a positive attitude.

A conformity facade makes an organization appear more unanimous than it actually is. Limiting it requires clear standards of conduct and space for different beliefs and interpretations. Authenticity becomes possible when you don't have to pay for it by losing job security.

How Empatyzer supports conversations about values and misalignment

Empatyzer can help you sort out the difference between your own preferences and the way your organization works. The Organizational culture view allows you to review the available information about the culture the user prefers and the culture people report experiencing as a starting point for specific questions. But it doesn't say who's honest or whether an employee is presenting a conformity facade. The user can prepare a description of a practice they disagree with and decide what the purpose of the next conversation is. It may be an explanation of a decision, a statement of a boundary or a proposal to change the way in which action is taken. It's better to focus on examples rather than evaluate the entire company in a single label. Em helps you choose the language and the scope of the message, but it doesn't eliminate the risks of a real power imbalance. The decision to disclose one's position should take into account the working conditions, the support available and the importance of the case to the user.