Thanksgiving Invites Cognitive Dissonance

Many of us grew up with a single story about Thanksgiving - a harmonious feast celebrating the harvest between pilgrims and Native Americans filled with shared gratitude. We have traditions, gathering with friends and family to give thanks.

That white-centric narrative leaves out another living truth. For Native peoples, Thanksgiving is a Day of Mourning rooted in profound loss, violence, and ongoing harm.

If you’ve grown up believing one story of Thanksgiving, holding both of these realities at once is uncomfortable. It’s also a uniquely human capacity, and a leadership muscle we need to build to rise to the challenges we face. I’m talking about cognitive dissonance. 

Why this discomfort matters

Contrary to common gut reactions, the discomfort of cognitive dissonance isn’t an alarm bell to armour up. It’s a strength, a muscle to exercise. When we can stay with the tension of two conflicting ideas instead of defaulting to a single right “truth,” we expand what’s possible inside ourselves and with each other.

Unfortunately, many people instinctively want to argue, defend, or reject opposing view points when they experience cognitive dissonance. This is especially true when a different perspective not only contradicts our own, but challenges the very fabric of our identity and worldview. 

I remember experiencing such discomfort when I was in grad school. My first job out of college was with Habitat for Humanity. I was proud of our mission and my role in supporting the growth of this non-profit - it even inspired me to pursue my Masters in Public Administration (MPA) in organizational leadership. 

In one seminar, I told a professor I had experience with community-based organizing through my work with Habitat. She gently replied, “Habitat isn’t a community-based organization.”

My body’s first response was shame, then defensiveness. Inclined to argue, I shared the reasons I believed we were community based. She listened, then offered a distinction that landed like a pebble in my shoe, “Who holds the power?” 

At Habitat, as in many traditional nonprofits, the board, leaders, and majority of staff (myself included) were not from the communities we served. We did important work, providing affordable, stable housing, and also reproduced existing power structures by keeping decision-making and governance outside the hands of those most affected.

. 

The presence of these two opposing perspectives being true at once felt impossible. It called into question aspects of my identity and worldview that contributed to my discomfort. 

How could I be contributing to the greater good AND upholding oppressive systems of power at the same time? 

How is it that we live in a democracy where the government is for the people, by the people, and yet exist within unbalanced power structures resulting in a division of haves and have nots based on socioeconomic status, race, gender, etc.? 

All of this created a cacophony in my being. Luckily, I was afforded the space to express and work through these disconnects. That enabled me to expand my perspective through curiosity rather than become further entrenched in a limiting belief that denied the complex truth of the situation. 

That curiosity sparked the focus of my master’s thesis, which has served as the foundation of my work as a leader, developing other leaders. It turns out the discomfort was not only necessary for my growth, but an essential part of the process of learning and creating.

Cognitive dissonance as a leadership practice

These kinds of disconnects, where we experience two opposing thoughts or feelings, happen often in life and work. And if we deny them, we not only hamper our progress by rejecting aspects of reality we must contend with, we fail to live up to our own values.

Leaders who build their capacity for cognitive dissonance:

• Honor multiple realities without diluting any of them, which creates belonging.

• Move from defensiveness to curiosity, which models openness to learning.

• Co-create solutions in complex, emotionally charged contexts, which leads to buy-in and follow-through.

• Reduce harm by refusing to erase people’s stories in the name of comfort or the status quo, which contributes to psychological safety.

  
  

Because of the way our brains are hardwired, we tend to find comfort in both the familiar and in certainty. This is especially true when we perceive a threat, feel unsafe or question our belonging. In those situations we become attached to the story that’s known to us while rejecting the one that’s new. We fixate on black & white thinking - good vs. bad, right vs. wrong - and fail to see the shades of gray, the nuance present in everyday situations.

When we insist on maintaining these limited mental models of the world we deny others’ lived experiences. With black and white thinking, we block empathy, and we limit the solutions we can even imagine.

Just because a tree loses its leaves in winter does not mean that it’s dead. A tree can look dead in December and still be alive. The same is true for our work situations.

Lately, I’ve been supporting leaders and teams navigating uncertainty and chaos. Change is happening but what that means remains unknown. This can either lead to entrenched, positional, black & white thinking, or expansive, curious, and empathetic thinking. The choice is ours to make!

In these situations, it’s imperative to hold multiple truths at once. Change and uncertainty instill fear for some, and excitement in others. The lack of clarity is confusing and a beacon for innovation. The possibilities are endless, which is both invigorating and nerve wracking. Change is necessary and hard. 

We need to be present to this tension of unknowns along with the excitement of possibilities. We hold hope that what will become, will be better than what is, yet we don’t yet know how we will get there. 

Bringing this into rooms you lead

Whether you’re guiding a team conversation, a community gathering, or a dinner table, it’s important to create space for cognitive dissonance. This can look like…

• Setting the frame by acknowledging that two opposing perspectives or feelings can both be true at the same time. And compassionately challenging when people get stuck in black or white thinking patterns.

• Modeling the practice by sharing your own experiences and struggles with competing ideas or feelings. And showing how you’ve allowed yourself to be changed by embracing ideas that feel contradictory and what happened as a result.

• Creating space for realness by allowing people wrestle with their own cognitive dissonance in respectful ways. This may include hard conversations where people process sadness, grief, anger, or confusion.

• Inviting stories, not debates by sparking curiosity, asking questions and seeking to understand other perspectives. Encourage communication with both/and.

• Acknowledge that limits and agency can co-exist by naming the presence of uncertainty while grounding into that which is within your control individually and collectively in this moment.

  
  

Cultivating space for cognitive dissonance is not about perfection or performance. It’s about refusing to erase one truth to make another more comfortable. It’s about growing our collective capacity to face complexity with dignity. It’s about ensuring we are not allowing limiting beliefs to hinder our abilities to navigate opportunities for transformational growth.

You are entitled to whatever relationship you have with this holiday, and others’ experiences are equally true. Accepting cognitive dissonance around the story of Thanksgiving is the living embodiment of the Declaration of Independence. 

You’ve got this,

Ariana Friedlander

If you’ve found value in what I wrote here and you want to support me in continuing to create, guide, write, and make space for deeper transformation, I invite you to buy me a tea.

Buy Me a Tea