Norm consistency and mixed messages: meaning and application

An organisation writes in its job adverts that work–life balance goes without saying, while managers send emails in the evening and expect quick replies. Employees and candidates often notice such gaps between words and deeds before the sender does. What then happens to the credibility of the message, and how do you research it carefully?

Norm consistency is the degree to which what an organisation and its leaders do matches what they say, promise and promote as a norm. A mixed message arises when the words and deeds of the same sender contradict each other.

In research, the closest related concept is behavioural integrity. Studies find a strong association between the perceived alignment of words and deeds and trust in leaders. Whether a contradiction in your organisation damages credibility needs research per situation and sender.

Every organisation promotes norms: in core values, job adverts, policies and speeches. At the same time it shows norms in what actually happens: who gets rewarded and how managers react to an evening email that goes unanswered. Norm consistency describes how well those two layers fit together.

A mixed message is the opposite: two signals from the same sender point in different directions. One says "take your rest", the other rewards constant availability. A common informal term for this is the say–do gap.

In this knowledge base, norm consistency is an editorial name. In the literature, the concept is closest to behavioural integrity, complemented by research on the psychological contract and on source credibility.

In 2002, Tony Simons introduced the concept of behavioral integrity: the perceived pattern of alignment between a manager's words and deeds, with attention to promise keeping and to espoused versus enacted values (Simons, 2002).

Two choices matter. It is a perception: employees ascribe behavioural integrity on the basis of what they see, and that need not match what a manager intends. And it is about alignment, not morality: someone who openly advocates self-interest and acts accordingly is consistent in this sense. Simons also notes that managers are often unaware of gaps between their own words and deeds.

A second root is the psychological contract: the reciprocal obligations employees perceive, partly based on what was said during recruitment. Robinson and Rousseau followed 128 alumni of a management programme up to two years after graduation. A majority, 54.8 per cent, reported that their employer had violated that contract (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).

The literature offers three complementary explanations.

1. Trust. People who see words and deeds align can predict behaviour better. Simons proposed that ascribed behavioural integrity increases trust and that its absence decreases trust (Simons, 2002).
2. Clarity. Consistent behaviour shows which norm really applies, so employees do not have to work it out themselves. This is an interpretation by Simons and colleagues (Simons et al., 2015).
3. Violated expectations. In the meta-analysis by Zhao and colleagues, the link between perceived contract breach and work attitudes ran through affective reactions: feelings of violation and mistrust (Zhao et al., 2007).

Simons, Leroy, Collewaert and Masschelein combined research on managers' behavioural integrity in a meta-analysis of 35 independent samples. Employees' judgements of their manager's behavioural integrity were strongly associated with trust in that manager (meta-analytic correlation ρ = 0.78) and with affective commitment (ρ = 0.56), and more modestly with task performance (ρ = 0.27) and extra-role behaviour (ρ = 0.26) (Simons et al., 2015).

Zhao and colleagues combined research on psychological contract breach. Perceived breach was related to all eight work outcomes studied except actual turnover, including satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions and performance (Zhao et al., 2007).

These are strong indications, not proof of cause and effect: according to Simons and colleagues, most underlying studies are cross-sectional. They also concern employees, not candidates or customers.

Credibility also depends on who delivers a message. In a classic experiment, Yale students read identical texts attributed to a trustworthy or a less trustworthy source. With the trustworthy source, the conclusion was judged justified in 71.7 per cent of cases; with the less trustworthy source, in 36.7 per cent. The amount of factual information learned did not differ, and after four weeks the difference in opinion had become smaller (Hovland & Weiss, 1951).

A review of five decades of research concludes that a highly credible source is usually more persuasive, but that this can turn out differently depending on source, message, channel and receiver (Pornpitakpan, 2004). The editorial application: an organisation that visibly fails to follow its own norm makes itself a less credible sender of that norm.

A new core value, a culture programme or a revised policy is judged alongside what people see every day. Simons pointed out that rapidly succeeding change initiatives can strengthen the impression that words and deeds diverge.

Practical implications (editorial advice):

• Only promote a norm widely once you know which behaviour belongs to it and whether that is feasible.
• Look at systems and habits, such as appraisal criteria and meeting times, not only at words.
• Acknowledge an existing contradiction rather than explaining it away.

Employer branding promises candidates a certain work experience. According to Robinson and Rousseau, reciprocal obligations form during and after recruitment. Promising something in recruitment communication that employees do not recognise therefore lays the groundwork for perceived contract breach.

Research on realistic job previews underlines the importance of honesty. A meta-analytic path analysis of 52 studies with about 17,000 participants found that perceived organisational honesty was the main mechanism through which such previews were related to voluntary turnover (Earnest, Allen & Landis, 2011). Job previews are not employer branding, but the finding points in the same direction: alignment between what you say and what people experience counts. See also Employer branding through neuroscience.

Because norm consistency is a perception, you research it among the people who receive the signals. Combine several angles (editorial advice):

• Make the norm concrete. What exactly does the norm promise, and which behaviour belongs to it?
• Map the signals. Formal messages such as policies and job adverts, and informal signals such as managers' behaviour and rewards.
• Measure perceived alignment per sender. In behavioural integrity research, employees usually rate their own manager. Distinguish between senior leadership and direct managers, because the judgement can differ per sender.
• Elicit associations. Which meanings do people spontaneously connect with the norm? Read more in How do you measure associations?
• Handle behavioural data with care. Data on out-of-hours email traffic is privacy-sensitive: only aggregated, with a lawful basis and after informing employees.

1. Name the norm and the sender. Which norm is promoted, by whom and through which channels?
2. Translate the norm into behaviour. What behaviour would someone expect if the norm holds?
3. List the signals that confirm or contradict the norm.
4. Measure the perception of alignment per sender, and the associations the norm evokes.
5. Interpret the contradictions. With which sender and in which situations do words and deeds diverge?
6. Choose a direction and test it. Adjust behaviour, policy or message and test that with an outcome measure chosen in advance. See also From target group insights to testable messages.

This example is fictional and intended as an illustration.

Situation. A medium-sized health insurer presents itself in its employer branding with work–life balance: flexible hours and "after six, it's quiet". At the same time, several managers send emails in the evening and expect quick replies.

Decision question. Should the organisation adjust its recruitment message, the behaviour of its managers, or both?

Available information. Job adverts, an availability policy, an employee survey with one general question about workload and exit interviews. How employees judge the alignment between message and practice has not been researched.

Approach. The organisation makes concrete what work–life balance promises. It then asks employees and recent hires, per sender, how well words and deeds align and which associations the term evokes. An aggregated picture of out-of-hours email traffic complements this.

Possible interpretation. Suppose employees find senior leadership consistent but not their own manager. That would point to a mixed message at the level of direct managers, not to a wrong norm. No results are known in this example.

Next step. A hypothesis to test: clear availability agreements, modelled by managers, do more for credibility than a new campaign. The external message follows.

• Treating it as a copywriting problem. Better wording does not close a gap with practice.
• Checking only policy documents. Norm consistency exists in the eyes of the receivers.
• Confusing integrity with consistency. A consistent sender is not automatically ethical, and an ethical sender is not automatically consistent.
• Assuming a single sender. Senior leadership, managers and recruitment can send different signals.
• Applying group results to individuals. An average judgement does not tell you how one employee or manager is seen.

You can show how employees or candidates perceive the alignment between words and deeds, which signals count and whether that judgement goes together with trust or commitment.

You cannot simply conclude that a mixed message caused the loss of trust, or that restoring consistency will bring trust back. Most studies are cross-sectional and come from specific contexts. They support the principle, but not a fixed effect size for your organisation.

The credibility of a message depends partly on the behaviour visible alongside it. Research on behavioural integrity, the psychological contract and source credibility indicates that contradictory signals go together with lower trust. So research per sender how receivers perceive words and deeds, and adjust behaviour before the message.