Contradictory Consciousness in Governance

Introduction: The Paradox at the Heart of Governance

Have you ever sat in a meeting, nodded in agreement that “something must change,” only to watch the group swiftly return to business as usual?

It could be a discussion about systemic inequality, climate risk, organisational culture, or accountability gaps. The issue was clearly articulated. Heads nodded. Perhaps someone even took notes. Yet no follow-up emerged. No decision was made. The system remained untouched.

This is not apathy. It’s not ignorance. It’s something more complex — and more dangerous.

This edition of The Governance Compass examines a subtle yet pervasive challenge in leadership and organisational stewardship: the contradictory consciousness — the state of knowing something is wrong, yet acting as if it isn’t.

It is the quiet consensus that allows dissonance to thrive. The polite paralysis that prefers stability over integrity. The moment when clarity meets comfort — and comfort wins.

Contradictory consciousness operates beneath the surface of even well-intentioned institutions. It doesn’t look like outright denial. It often wears the mask of civility, deliberation, or pragmatism. But make no mistake: it is one of the most persistent barriers to change in modern governance.

When leaders and systems acknowledge problems yet preserve harmful norms, they create a disorienting reality for everyone involved. It inhibits progress, erodes credibility, and undermines trust — not only in individual leaders, but in governance itself.

In this issue, we explore how contradictory consciousness takes hold, what it looks like in action, and most importantly, how leaders can move from awareness to alignment — from knowing to doing.

What Is Contradictory Consciousness?

Contradictory consciousness isn’t just hypocrisy, nor is it the same as Orwellian doublethink. It’s more nuanced — and more insidious. It describes a condition where individuals, leadership bodies, or entire systems intellectually recognise serious problems — systemic racism, gender imbalance, environmental degradation, unethical governance — but continue to behave in ways that reinforce those very problems.

In other words, awareness exists, even concern is expressed, but the corresponding action never materialises. Or if it does, it’s symbolic rather than structural.

The term has its roots in social theory, especially in the work of Antonio Gramsci, who used it to describe how individuals can hold two seemingly incompatible beliefs: a critical awareness of injustice, and a passive acceptance of its continuation. This divided consciousness — knowing and not acting — allows people to live within systems they know are harmful, without fully confronting their complicity.

In governance, this manifests as a persistent disconnection between stated values and institutional behaviour.

For example:

▪ Boards that publicly acknowledge the need for diversity, different perspectives, and lived experience, but then quietly appoint another member from the same professional and demographic background as the rest.

▪ Institutions that declare climate emergencies and release sustainability reports, while continuing to invest in fossil fuels, procure unsustainable materials, or ignore environmental justice concerns.

▪ Agencies that champion transparency in their mission statements — yet withhold critical information, bury dissent, or make decisions behind closed doors.

These contradictions are not simply oversights. They are baked into organisational culture, decision-making logic, and power structures. They are structurally reinforced by how performance is measured, who gets rewarded, and what risks are considered "acceptable." They are psychologically rooted in fear, rationalisation, and the need to preserve identity or reputation. And they are often strategically designed to signal progress without disrupting core interests or hierarchies.

The result is a governance environment that speaks the language of transformation but resists its substance. And this contradiction, left unexamined, becomes one of the most potent barriers to meaningful, lasting change.

Why It Happens: Four Drivers of Contradiction

Contradictory consciousness in governance doesn’t stem from bad intentions alone. It’s often the byproduct of deeper systemic forces and human tendencies. Here are four common drivers:

1. Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance

When there’s a mismatch between values and actions, it creates internal discomfort — the classic cognitive dissonance. But rather than confront or correct the behaviour, individuals and institutions often resolve the discomfort by rationalising it. “We’re working on it.” “Change takes time.” “We can’t afford to do this yet.” These are coping mechanisms — not solutions. Over time, they allow contradictions to feel normal, even defensible.

2. Institutional Inertia

Governance systems are designed to ensure continuity — to manage risk, enforce accountability, and prevent volatility. But that same architecture often slows or blocks transformation. Legacy processes, budget cycles, governance codes, and role definitions all tend to reward predictability and penalise deviation. Even when people want change, the machinery of governance can default to the familiar, reinforcing outdated norms through repetition.

3. Fear of Disruption

Acknowledging a systemic problem — whether racism, corruption, or climate failure — raises uncomfortable questions: Who is responsible? What must be sacrificed? What happens if we act — and it fails? Many leaders fear the consequences of meaningful action: political backlash, legal exposure, stakeholder revolt, and reputational risk. So the safer path is to recognise the problem without disturbing the structure that sustains it.

4. Performative Accountability

In the age of heightened scrutiny, appearances matter. Stakeholders — from investors to citizens — demand visible commitments. This creates strong incentives to look accountable without necessarily being accountable. Reports are published. Strategies are rebranded. Pledges are made. But when the dust settles, the underlying system remains untouched. Performative action becomes a substitute for genuine progress — a way to satisfy scrutiny while sidestepping sacrifice.

Case Studies: Knowing, Yet Not Doing

1. ESG Governance in Financial Institutions

Many financial institutions have now deeply embedded Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks into their reporting cycles, shareholder communications, and risk models. Yet despite growing public commitments, significant portions of their portfolios remain invested in industries that directly contradict ESG principles — including fossil fuels, extractive mining, and surveillance technologies. Some have even faced legal or regulatory scrutiny over “greenwashing” or ESG misrepresentation.The contradiction? They know the long-term impacts of these investments, but often choose incremental adjustments, offsets, or reclassification over actual divestment or exclusion.

2. Public Sector Climate Declarations

Local governments in cities across Europe, North America, and the Global South have declared climate emergencies. These declarations often come with bold language and public visibility. Yet operational policies — from building codes to procurement contracts to transportation infrastructure — continue to reflect carbon-intensive and short-term priorities.The contradiction? Climate risk is acknowledged at the narrative level, but too often remains disconnected from core decision-making and budgetary structures.

The Impact: Trust, Legitimacy, and Performance

Contradictory consciousness doesn’t just stall progress — it corrodes governance from the inside out. The longer contradictions persist unaddressed, the more they degrade the essential components that give institutions power and purpose.

▪ Public Trust ErodesWhen institutions make bold claims but fail to follow through, stakeholders notice. Employees disengage, communities grow cynical, and constituents begin to see governance not as a mechanism for change, but as a theatre of delay. Over time, trust becomes harder to rebuild than it was to maintain.

▪ Decision-Making Suffers: Avoiding hard truths leads to short-termism, risk aversion, and performative action. Leaders stop asking the difficult questions, and systems begin designing policies around optics instead of outcomes. Innovation is sidelined in favour of appearances.

▪ Legitimacy Weakens:Authority in governance doesn’t stem from titles or procedures alone — it’s earned through consistency between words and actions. When that alignment breaks down, so does the legitimacy of the institution. People stop believing not just in what is said, but in the system that says it.

Breaking the Cycle: From Knowing to Doing

So, how can boards, councils, and leadership teams disrupt the loop of contradictory consciousness and steer toward meaningful governance? The shift requires courage, structural change, and a willingness to confront discomfort. Here are five key practices to help:

1 Name the Contradiction Explicitly: Don’t let it hide in plain sight. Name the misalignment between your stated values and institutional behaviour. Surface the discomfort, and let it fuel constructive action rather than shame or defensiveness.

2 Build Decision Infrastructure: That Supports Integrity. It’s not enough to aspire to values — you have to operationalise them. Embed those values in procurement rules, performance metrics, recruitment practices, and board mandates. Governance integrity should be built into the system, not bolted on.

3 Empower Independent Oversight: Create space for critique that comes from outside the chain of command. Independent review bodies, whistleblower protections, and advisory panels can illuminate blind spots before they become liabilities.

4 Reward Alignment: Not Just ResultsRecognise and incentives behaviours that reflect principled action — even when they take longer to deliver. Integrity is a performance metric in its own right.

5 Foster a Culture of Consequence: Without consequences, contradiction becomes normalised. Establish accountability structures that apply equally to leaders and staff, not as punishment, but as a safeguard for credibility.

Reflection Prompt: What Am I Tolerating?

Contradictory consciousness often hides in plain sight, not as defiance, but as quiet accommodation. As a leader, your power lies not only in making decisions but in deciding what not to ignore.

Take a moment to ask yourself — honestly and without defensiveness:

▪ What do I know is wrong, but I continue to accept as normal?Is it an exclusionary hiring pattern? A performance metric that rewards the wrong behaviour? A norm we've rationalised because it’s too inconvenient to challenge?

▪ Where are we making promises we don’t intend — or aren’t resourced — to keep?Are our public commitments matched by budgets, authority, and timelines? Or are we offering hopeful language without realistic backing?

▪ What would it take to close the gap between our rhetoric and our behaviour?What needs to be redesigned — structurally, culturally, financially — to ensure our values aren’t just words on a page, but lived principles in our systems?

Contradictory consciousness isn’t a personal moral failing. It’s a warning signal — a sign that the system is defaulting to comfort, performance, and narrative control over courageous, structural action.

Governance is not the avoidance of contradiction — it’s the willingness to confront it. True leadership begins when we stop managing around discomfort and start moving through it — with clarity, accountability, and integrity.

In Closing: Conscious Leadership Is Coherent Leadership

To govern is to choose. And those choices reveal far more than strategic priorities — they illuminate what an institution truly stands for.

When decisions align with your stated values, you don’t just meet compliance checklists or manage reputational risk. You build something deeper and more enduring: trust, resilience, and legitimacy.

Incoherence — between what is said and what is done — erodes all three. Over time, it doesn’t just weaken your organisation’s external standing; it corrodes internal confidence and purpose. People lose faith not because problems exist, but because leaders pretend they don’t — or act as if they’re powerless to change them.

The Governance Compass invites you to resist that drift. To look inward, speak honestly, and act boldly. Not just because the moment demands it, but because your integrity does.

Contradictions are inevitable in complex systems. But remaining in contradiction without challenge or change is a choice. And it’s a choice that conscious, courageous leadership refuses to make.