In the early 1960’s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a now-famous social psychology experiment regarding humans’ tendency to obey authority figures regardless of the ethical or moral implications. The basic premise of the experiment was to measure individuals’ willingness to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. In the Milgram Experiment, participants were instructed by an authority figure to perform an act that apparently inflicted intense pain (i.e., an electric shock) on innocent subjects.
Before the study, Milgram’s colleagues at Yale predicted that only about 1% of the participants could be coerced into inflicting the maximum level of pain (voltage) on the subjects. The vast majority of people, they believed, would resist the authority figure and refuse to subject their fellow man to such treatment. To their horror, however, 65% of experiment participants gradually succumbed to the authority figure and willingly applied what they believed to be massive electric shocks on the subjects. Though every participant exhibited uneasiness with the experiment, only one person actually stood up to the authority figure and refused to inflict pain on the subject. (Incidentally, no one was actually “shocked” in the experiment. The victim was an actor simulating intense pain, but this fact was not known by the unwitting participants. As far as they knew, the pain was real. Details regarding the “Milgram Obedience Experiment” are easily found on Google if you would like to learn more.)
The extreme nature of the Milgram experiment – and the participants’ willingness to go along – makes the implications to “ordinary” workplace ethics especially chilling. If the average person can be commanded by an authority to torture a complete stranger, what does this say about our ability to resist a wayward leader in the workplace? As Milgram noted in his 1974 article titled The Perils of Obedience:
Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
1) Do you have the courage to follow your instincts and act according to your values, even when an authority figure commands you to do otherwise? How do you know for sure?
2) Do you have a network or “safety net” that can help you live by your values if/when you are pushed to do the opposite?
3) Have you ever been in a situation where, looking back, you wish you had pushed back or refused to follow an order?
4) Conversely, have you ever refused to follow an order you felt to be unethical or immoral? What was the outcome?
I realize this is an older post, but it caught my eye because I remember learning about this controversial study in school and it having a big impact on me. My class was also shown the video (they did in fact film this experiment). Ironically, studies of this nature were eventually deemed unethical to conduct– yet as his post shows, the information that came out of it was as interesting as it was chilling.
The most chilling part of this experiment for me was when they also tested how proximity to the “victim” who was being punished affected the “punisher’s” behavior. According to the experiment, if the victim was far away, and/or the punisher could not see or hear them, the punisher was more likely to go further with the shocks in terms of intensity and duration. Was “out of sight, out of mind” at play? Or another explanation?
Anyway, I also want to post here and say many thanks to Ms. Edmond for keeping up a truly fascinating and thought-provoking blog. I look forward to reading more!
@Kate J. Hi Kate – great comments. Re: Oakley’s critique and POV – I haven’t had a chance to read her article yet. I will – but I wanted to get back to you on your other question about dealing with the person who solicits an unethical practice. As a general practice, that should not be tolereated – and in the best circumstance should never happen. But I know that it does. And when it does a company should first find out the facts of the situation and then hold the individual appropriately accountable. That said, sometimes a manager or executive is not asking for folks to do anything unethical, but in an attempt to please / interpret / anticipate, people cross the line thinking that is what is being asked or what will get them “ahead”. It is actually one of the reasons I wrote about the Milgram experiments. Often just asking for clarification is all it takes to slow down the situation, get the correct instructions and drive a different course of action. I have a great example that I will post later this month. Again, great comments and thoughtful questions – thanks for raising. ke
I’m so glad to have come across this post, Kathleen!
Milgam’s study is indeed noteworthy & is a perfect accompaniment to a converstation regarding human ethics. I want, however, to introduce a light counter-perspective of Milgram’s now-famous study in the form of Barbara Oakley’s conversation on the podcast Point of Inquiry (9/5/08).
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/barbara_oakley_social_psychology_genes_and_human_evil/
“In this interview with D.J. Grothe, Barbara Oakley shares her criticisms of the research of influential social scientists such as Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram, and explains why the biological sciences should be brought to bear on research about human evil. She addresses how her thesis in Evil Genes might be used as an excuse by some people in our society to do bad things, and details specifics from the life of her sister that serve as a window into her exploration of human evil.”
At Best Buy, we’re lucky to have clearly defined values. I am confident that I can perform the duties of my job ethically. I am also confident that I have resources available to deal with a situation should it enter an unethical or grey area. I only wish I could have the same confidence in the Company’s commitment to not tolerate unethical requests and practices. I am not advocating for a stong “policing” policy that targets the common employee but rather a zero tollerance policy that sends a clear message to leaders to not dare request something unethical of their direct reports.
What do you think of Oakley’s critique of Milgram’s study?
How do you think a company should deal with the individual/superior soliciting an unethical practice?
Hi,
So sorry that you had this experience with us. Did you get what you need? Can I help? I am on the road at the moment, but you can send me an email directly at kathleen.edmond@bestbuy.com, or call my office and leave a message – I will call you back on Thursday 612-291-7451. ke
Ms. Edmond,
Funny I happend to find your blog on company ethics at this very moment. I have now been shuffled to 5 different employees and have been getting the biggest “run around” in resolving a product defect issue. It seems no one want to help or is capable of helping! I finally had to tell them I found your blog along with the e-mail address for CEO Brian Dunn to get anyone to even listen to or RESPECT me. Customer service has sure gone way down over the past year. I would think with unemployment being so high customer service would be so much better, because employees would know there are “a lot” of people waiting in line for their job. Today on the phone with many of your employees you would think they really do not care about if they keep their job or not.