How Autonomous Are We - Essay Example

?How Autonomous Are We? Table of Contents Introduction 3 Thesis ment 3 Implication of Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s Work on Employee Morale 4 Discussion on Milgram’s Work 4 Discussion on Zimbardo’s Work 5 What It Means To Be A Moral Employee? 6 Conclusion 7 Works Cited 8 Introduction The experiment piloted by Milgram and Zimbardo is recognized as one of the most popular researches in the field of psychology. The experiment of Stanley Milgram occurred during the period of 1960 and 1963 at Yale University. He desired to study about the preparedness of people to follow commands from higher authority in order to perform activities which can be disagreed to one’s personal morality (Nicholson, “Shocking Masculinity: Stanley Milgram, “Obedience to Authority,” and the “Crisis of Manhood” in Cold War America”). On the other hand, ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ was carried out by Philip Zimbardo during 1971 in Stanford University in order to evaluate the intrinsic personality traits of people due to offensive behavior of higher authority (Zimbardo, “Terminated on August 20, 1971”). Outcome of these experiments together conform to certain facts which inhibit the very core of political and economic systems of the United States. Thesis Statement With due consideration to the experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo, the essay focuses on how these researches impact on the broader procedure of autonomy. The objective of the essay is to develop a discussion about implication of Milgram and Zimbardo’s work on becoming a moral employee. Implication of Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s Work on Employee Morale Discussion on Milgram’s Work At first, in can be stated that autonomy denotes freedom or independence. It is the capability to make a rational, informed and unforced decision. In political system of the United States, autonomy is frequently used as the foundation for defining the ethical duty for one’s activities. Autonomy refers to a person’s individual self-governance. However, in reality and on the basis of experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo, it can be stated that at times autonomy is suppressed by conformity and obedience. In psychological term, conformity is regarded as change in activities of a minority in order to adjust with majority. On the other hand, obedience happens when a person changes the conduct due to direct command from superior. Through the experiment, Milgram has found high degree of obedience among people (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, “Milgram's Experimental View of Authority”). Throughout the research, he has depicted that every society where people live has their own accepted manners of performing which are termed as norms. Norms are approved principles of behavior of people in a society. These principles can restrict the behavior of every group of people such as students, patients, employees and business executives among others. In other words, every person must obey the social norms of the group or society where they belong. At times, people adapt to certain behavior of other persons regardless of being individually incompatible with their behavior. In any organization, authority plays a vital role in determining the level of conformity of employees. When employees feel that they belong to certain organization, they will accept the organizational norms in order to secure their job position. On the other hand, employees at times conform to authority due to lack of confidence and courage. The level of obedience also relies on the cultural aspects. For instance, in collectivist cultures such as China, group achievement is provided more importance than individual employee achievement, conversely in individualistic cultures such as the United States individual employee performance is provided more importance than group performance. As such, it is apparent that activities of any employee in any organization are subjected to the pressure whether it is cultural pressure, group pressure or pressure from authority. Discussion on Zimbardo’s Work The outcome of Zimbardo’s research stated the fact that situational provenance impacts on the activities of people. In other words, his experiment demonstrates that the situation of a person can impact on his/her behavior towards authority. His interpretations are highly compatible with the learning outcomes of Milgram, where experiments of both of the researchers depict the fact that common people fulfill the order of higher authority in order to avoid any negative circumstances. The situational rules act as a silent force which can restrict the freedom of employees in an organization (Smith, “Milgram and Zimbardo Revisited: The Capacity for Cruelty in Normal Populations”). In an organization, every employee struggles to maintain their self-respect, independence and principles against the situational power of a harsh unjust authority or an unsympathetic organizational system. In each experiment, the common people abstain from demonstrating their natural obligation of essential characteristics to individual and group correspondents where power, command and authority function against autonomy. What It Means To Be A Moral Employee? The experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo can be applied in employees’ moral behavior through cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance appears in organizations when employees feel that their inner opinions are suppressed due to higher authority. Due to fear of termination from job, employees often blindly agree with the decision of higher authority which inhibits the autonomy. However, the inhibition of autonomy can be seen from both viewpoints i.e. progressive or conservative, on the basis of actions that have been restricted. Every employee who faces with uncomfortable realities can resolve the disagreement by two ways i.e. through accepting the authority or through rejecting the authority which depend on the situation and moral of the employee (Walker, “Cognitive Dissonance And Morality”). There are several psychological factors which make an employee to obey the command of higher authority. Employees probably obey when they accept the supremacy and eminence of a person realized to be in the authoritative position. However, autonomy does not denote that one can give up on the personal responsibilities due to the independent activities. Autonomy is vital, but a moral employee must not forget the moralities only because of following the command of higher authority. Employees can use the intellectual capabilities in order to resist the obedience to authority. If employees are prompted with the rights and the responsibilities, the obedience to unacceptable commands decreases. Conclusion Every employee demonstrates certain characteristics which are a combination of obedient, reluctant and autonomous behavior, when it arrives to such situations where they require choosing the right activities and performances in the presence of authority. From the two experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo, it is still unclear that if authority can lead employees to become more moral, because different people can have different beliefs on the command of high authority. In reality, the autonomous people possess high level of self-confidence regarding their own capabilities. Hence, they are able to resist the pressure provided by the higher authority. High level of self-confidence is a crucial element for any employee in order to maintain autonomy during increase in pressure from authority. Works Cited Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Milgram's Experimental View of Authority, n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. Nicholson, Ian. “Shocking Masculinity: Stanley Milgram, “Obedience to Authority,” and the “Crisis of Manhood” in Cold War America”. Chicago Journals 102.2 (2011): 238 – 268. Print. Smith, Martin R. Milgram and Zimbardo Revisited: The Capacity for Cruelty in Normal Populations. Ninth International Conference on Multiple Personality/Dissociative States, 13 Nov. 1992. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. Walker, James. Cognitive Dissonance and Morality. James Randi Educational Foundation, n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. Zimbardo, Philip G. Terminated on August 20, 1971. Stanford Prison Experiment, 20 Aug. 1971. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. Read More