Obedience to Authority - Coursework Example

s Obedience to ity Stanley Milgram’s study on obedience was not only controversial but it led to some of the most remarkable discoveries in the field of social psychology. His findings have been considered to be of great relevance to the field of management sciences for it provides great insight into how human behavior is shaped in the presence of an authoritative figure. Although, initially the study had been conducted to discover the reason behind the atrocities committed by soldiers; particularly the German soldiers, towards their fellow beings during the World War II; Milgram focused more on events like the Holocaust. However, the findings that had been established by the study can also be applied on a professional front as well. Before delving into the relationship of Milgram’s study with contemporary organizations and management, the substance of this prose will first discuss the dynamics of the experiment developed by him that led to these shocking findings. I. Milgram’s Experiment Paradigm For years Milgram had been fascinated by the idea of conformity; he had previously worked with Asch on his study on this subject for his Post-doctoral, however, instead peer influence, Milgram wanted to delve in to the capacity of individuals to conform to the authority (Haslam and Reicher, 2011). His study was meant to examine multiple elements of human nature such as personal conflict and conscience. The study was conducted in the Basement of Yale University; Milgram had initially used Yale students as study subjects, but unsatisfied with the results, he used ordinary middle class people to draw out conclusions that could be generalized on to the masses. He wished to observe the compliance level amongst people from all walks of life and socio-economic status that will help determine their capability of inflicting harm to other beings. (Millard, 2011) The sample was chosen through an advert, which said that the subjects were required to carry out an experiment regarding learning ethics; Milgram has garnered his fair share of censure for deceiving the participants of the study. However, deception was actually a necessity, for the participants would have behaved differently if they knew what the real objective of the study was. The advert helped Milgram gather a sample of 40 middle class men, who were between the ages of 20 to 50. Before starting the experiment, the subject meets with another subject, who is in fact the experimenter’s associate. The test subject and the associate draw straws, in order to choose the roles of a learner and teacher in the experiment. (Millard, 2011) Since, it is a controlled experiment, the subject always ended up with the role of a teacher, whereas the associate, Mr. Wallace was taken to another room where he was strapped on to a chair and was connected with electrodes. The teacher then asked the students a series of question and for every wrong answer, the subject was to administer a shock, which increased in intensity as the learner continued to make mistakes through a contraption. The contraption that was used to administer shocks that had 30 switches, which went from a mild shock of 15 volts to a ‘Severe shock’ of 450 volts, which was marked with a small danger sign as well. The teacher was always supervised by an experimenter, who was actually an actor. (Millard, 2011) Every time the subject showed sign of distress, the experimenter urged them to continue using verbal prompts like: “You must continue”, “It is absolutely essential that you continue” or “You have no other choice but to continue”. The learner made sounds of distress when he was being shocked but the outcome was that out 40 subjects, 26 participants administered a shock of 450 volts to the learner, whereas the remaining subjects only went up till 300 volts. Considering these statistics Milgram was able to draw out that ordinary people were likely to conform to authority and inflict pain on other members of society if prompted by them. Even during experiment, experimenters observed that all participants experienced nervousness and anxiety. Some of them even exhibited extremely dramatic impacts such as laughing fits and full blown seizures, but despite that they adhered to the prompts. A lack of physical contact with the learner also created a sense of learned helpless because shocking them as per the experimenter’s prompt seemed simpler by just pulling one of the levers than resisting him. II. Factors that spur obedience One of the greatest misconceptions that this experiment successfully destroyed was that it is not only Germans who were capable of carrying out such heinous tasks, but when confronted with a situation where they are supposed to appease an authority figure, any individual would set aside their ethical values and will try their best to become the perfect sub-ordinate rather than do the right thing. Milgram described this as an ‘Agentic’ state that develops in a human, which makes them ‘good followers’, but not good people and results in great atrocities being committed by them (Haslam and Reicher, 2011). Though, many people do not concur with Milgram’s theory about Agentic state, but it serves as a plausible explanation for the increased compliance amongst German troops during the World War II; Hitler’s charismatic appeal could be held responsible for their high obedience that led to such inhuman behavior on their part (Overy, 2011). Milgram observed that there were a number of factors that may have escalated the level of compliance amongst each participant. This included the presence of the experimenter immediately enhanced the subject’s adherence to their commands. The pre-conceived notions of the subjects also enhanced their compliance for they were in complete awe of the fact that they were partaking in a study held in the prestigious Yale University. Moreover the experimenter was perceived as someone superior to the subject as he wore a laboratory coat that is symbolic for high intellect and scientific expertise, which instantly increased his credibility for the subject. Their repertoire of pre-conceived notions further led them to believe that the experiment was completely safe and though the shocks were painful, but will not cause any fatal damage to the learner. Milgram also took note of that fact that the proximity of the authority figure to the teacher played a key role in determining their compliance; for instance the farther the experimenter was to the subject, the higher the likelihood that the subject would defy the experimenter, whereas when the experimenter stood close to the subject, he was likely to follow all the instruction and prompts carefully. Monetary benefits create a greater sense of obligation amongst the study subject, since they realized that they were in fact getting paid for their participation, most of them continued out of a sense of responsibility to go through with the entire experiment. This aspect further cemented Milgram’s hypothesis that later developed into his ‘Theory of Agency’, these factors resulted in a personal conflict between their values and their duty. As a result, the subjects then focused entirely on becoming good subordinates than focusing on doing the right things; they adopted the role of an agent, carrying out the authority’s orders. Milgram carried out numerous studies on this front and also discovered that peer relationship also had a great hand. He established these findings after formulating a study on disobedience model. In which they found out that a participant’s compliance level increased and was less likely to resist, if he saw that all his other peers were going on with the experiment without any real qualms. Milgram explained that by being in a group the subjects were likely to pay more heed to their herd instinct rather than their sense of right and wrong. Though, there are some obvious drawbacks in Milgram’s study such as the fact that the study is quite gender biased in the sense that it focuses primarily on male behavior towards authority, which leads to the question that whether or not these findings can be applied on to the female lot. Even so, Milgram has provided great insight in to human behavior that has helped explained individual performance in organizations. Obedience is vital to pave way for smooth operations of an organization, but obedience requires greater understanding of the employee-employer relationship. III. Obedience in Organizations An employer aims to get the greatest amount of work done for lower labor cost, whereas an employee works with the aim of doing minimum amount of labor for maximum pay. Due to the gaping divide between the objectives of the said parties, it requires effective management technique to bridge this gap and motivate employees to work to their full potential for an organization. The findings have enabled organizations to come up with better management techniques to make their employees more obedient and loyal to the organization. In this regard, Milgram’s study may have contributed more than just providing in-depth insight into the subject’s psyche and his further studies demonstrate that obedience is the result of both the organization’s behavior and the employee’s disposition as well. Milgram (1974) sought to explain the relationship between obedience and disobedience through a chart that discussed the primary conditions for obedience and how these conditions contribute in establishing the Agentic cycle and how disobedience or resistance on part of the subject or the employee can break that cycle. The primary conditions for obedience are dichotomized into Binding Factors and Antecedent conditions. Though, Milgram developed this chart to explain the universal phenomenon of obedience, but in this prose the chart will be examined from the perspective of an organization; the latter term refers to the historical condition that spurs obedience. These factors are either innate in an individual or are ingrained through the teachings given by their primary caregivers. For instance, if an individual has been brought up in an environment in which he is ingrained with deep deference and respect for authority is naturally going to be a good sub-ordinate and follow all the prompts as closely as possible, then someone who has flagrant disregard for authority. Antecedent factors may also refer to the perception of organization by the employee or their credibility and superior image established in their mind, which also enhances obedience; this can be further understood from the point that when the experimenter was wearing a lab coat, adherence to his commands increased exponentially because his uniform automatically associated him with high intelligence and great scientific knowledge. On the other hand, binding factors refer to short-term incentives or reinforcers that enhance adherence. These reinforcers are a part of individual working environment for instance if they are given great perks or monetary incentives, the individual then works out of a sense of obligation for the organization. If an individual works in an environment that has a combination of these factors in their environment then as per Milgram’s postulations they give rise to an Agentic state within their employees, who work exceptionally hard to become good sub-ordinates, because their good behavior is followed by increased monetary incentives and bad behavior can cause them to lose their position or be heavily penalized for negligence or resistance on their part. IV. Blind Obedience Most organization employs relevant management techniques taking these aspects into close consideration in order to derive the greatest amount of adherence from the employee’s side. Although, obedience is a valuable trait but taking into account the great atrocities that were committed during the world war II as a result of great compliance to authority, blind obedience is no longer viewed in a favorable light by the society. Therefore, context is of absolute importance when it comes to obedience, otherwise when a subordinate blindly follows instruction then there can be a number of negative consequences. As highlighted in earlier parts of the prose, there indeed are a number of factors that cause an individual to obediently acquiesce to all demands of an individual. It is reported that some of the German were so in awe of Hitler and the third Reich that they transformed themselves in to willful executioners that they eliminated anyone who was deemed as an enemy or inferior by him. Not only historical, but the presence of empirical evidence regarding blind obedience clearly demonstrates that it is as destructive as it is beneficial to a particular organization. An individual can set aside their individual and personal for a time being when it comes to following an organization, but from a psychological if they carry out a task that clashes with one’s moral standing, then there are likely to be detrimental repercussions for the individual in the long-run. The presence of a conscience is what Milgram tried to investigate as well and he discovered that the subjects to felt anxious and nervous when administering the shock, but even then they continued. (Russell and Gregory, 2005) As they were later on told about the experiment, there were no long-term impacts on their psychological well-being but for people who carry out heinous missions and tasks for other organizations, they realize the magnitude of their wrong and the realization of it often causes paves their downward spiral in to depression and also triggers the development of suicidal ideation. As a matter of fact, many former Nazi soldiers are not completely over the atrocities they committed while they were in their Agentic state and subsequently suffer from a mental disorder called “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” or PTSD. The soldiers reported that they were haunted by nightmares and often relived the experience over and over again. For the sake of Hitler, they had truly set their own identity aside and literally transformed themselves into monsters. One of the biggest drawback of blind obedience is that the individuals loses his or herself and this loss of identity leaves behind a massive void that cannot be filled that easily and this state is figuratively referred to as their conscience pricking them. For ordinary people working in normal institutions and organization, the impact may not be as dramatic as PTSD but they do suffer from psychological impairment that greatly hampers their normal functioning. This is why researchers studied the impact of blind obedience and its root to prevent people from adopting the ‘Agentic’ state that subsequently strip them of their identity. Therefore, for contemporary organization to truly thrive in a society, where the people are quite aware of the consequences of blind obedience, organization must provide their subordinates with the opportunity for personal growth (Hickman, 2009, p. 367). Hitler’s fate will serve as a great cautionary tale for those who think otherwise, for there is a huge gap between obedience and blind obedience. They need to have the freedom of choice and though, incorporating tool to derive blind obedience may give them short-term benefits but in the long-run it has a catastrophic potential for the management and will definitely not ensure future sustainability. Bibliography: Haslam, S.A and Reicher, S.D., (2011). The Shock of the Old. Exeter: University of Exeter Hickman, G.R., (2009). Leading organizations: Perspectives of a New Era. New York: SAGE Publication: p. 367 Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Millard, K., (2011). The Window in the Laboratory. South Wales: Macquarie University Overy, R., (2011). In conversation with Alex Haslam and Richard Reicher: Milgram and Historians. Exeter: University of Exeter. Russel, N and Gregory, R., (2005). Making the un-doable doable: Milgram. The Holocaust and the Modern Government. New York: SAGE Publication. Read More