Escaping the Authority Trap

All Posts

We make thousands of choices per day. Some of them are so routinized that we don’t even think of them as choices, such as washing our hands or putting on our home slips. Others may seem trivial at first but can turn into life-threatening situations, such as crossing the street at a specific moment of time or walking beneath a building with many balconies. But what happens when we need to make a choice that also affects the well-being of others? How does the awareness of our power or the presence of a higher authority influence the choices we make?

There is not a person reading this sentence who never followed directions from a boss, parent or someone else of a higher presumptive power. We process and respond to the instructions or orders of those whose authoritative status we deem legitimate, whether due to our perception of higher levels of social status, experience, knowledge or intellect associated with a particular person or on account of a financial, moral or other form of dependency.

Some social experiments in the past were specifically designed to recreate and study the human reaction and response to authority and power when one is placed under extreme and very unfamiliar circumstances. The most famous ones are the Milgram and the Stanford prison experiments, both of which stunned society (note: if you are already familiar with the experiments, scroll down to the Takeaways section).

Yale university’s professor and psychologist Stanley Milgram started his series of experiments in 1961 with the underlying intention to prove that Americans would not be as prone to following orders obediently as the Nazi leaders and their followers were. Milgram came from the presumption that Germans were different from the others and wanted a proof that normal people would not commit monstrous crimes when instructed or coerced to do so. For this purpose, he created an experimental setup where the actual test subjects playing the role of ‘‘teachers’’ were instructed by an ‘‘experimenter’’ to administer electric shocks to ‘‘learners’’ in the next room anytime the learners provided an incorrect answer. The shock increments ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts. The experimenter and the learners were actors in disguise and the electric shocks were fake. The teachers (test subjects) were told that the experiment focused on studying people’s ability to memorize and learn, so they were completely oblivious to the true purpose of the experiment.

The results from the series of Milgram experiments were shocking to Milgram and many others who believed that Americans would not be capable of the horrors committed during the war: 65 percent of the participants were willing to administer the highest 450-volt shock that was described by the experimenter as lethal. Milgram later extended the experiment to other countries, always arriving at a range of 61-66 percent of participants who would deliver the lethal shock regardless of location. From those who refused to administer the fatal shock, not a single person asked that the experiment be terminated nor went to check the health of the victim in the other room. Another interesting twist is that in one of the variations of the study, the volunteers were asked to choose the voltage they wanted to apply to incorrect answers - only 2.5 percent chose the maximum and the average selected voltage was 83 volts; this finding supported the hypothesis that it was namely obedience to authority that significantly influenced the shocking results.

Milgram's experiment could not mirror the true conditions of the Holocaust, as it was an hour-long experience per test subject. However, it demonstrated an important aspect of human psychology - the ability to commit the worst atrocities once someone of power takes responsibility for our actions and releases us from personal culpability. It also illustrated how under the right circumstances human actions could easily be skewed to overpower a basic moral principle we have been raised with - do not harm.

The Stanford prison experiment was conducted ten years after Milgram’s by Stanford’s professor of psychology Philip Zimbardo. It aimed to study how individuals would act in an oppressive situation and whether the personal moral compass would overpower authority. Twenty four undergraduate volunteers were recruited and placed into a situation that they had never faced before - living the realistically staged experience of being guards or prisoners in a designed for the experiment prison facility in the basement of Stanford university. Zimbardo was the prison’s superintendent who set the rules for the guards. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but only lasted six days due to the unexpected negative developments deemed strong enough to affect the well-being of the participants in the experiment.

Dr. Zimbardo led a less controlled experiment than Milgram, allowing the prisoners to evolve their own behavior while sticking to their roles of power. There was visual and physical contact between the guards and the prisoners, but the guards wore sunglasses, which hid their eyes and strengthened the perception of power. The guards were specifically given the direction to oppress the prisoners and were reprimanded if acting more nicely than expected. Similarly to the teachers in the Milgram case, the guards were made to believe that they were not part of the experiment and that only the prisoners were test subjects.

The developments stunned even experienced psychologists like Zimbardo himself. The guards quickly unleashed a wave of harassment and humiliation directed at the prisoners who were now nameless, blindfolded, stripped and with chains on their feet. Any rebellion was met with strict punishment and an even harsher behavior from the guards. The guards also manipulated the prisoners by trying to turn them against any prisoner who rebelled, in order to break rebels who could undermine their power. The systematic abuse and brutality that was exercised would have easily escalated to physical violence, had Zimbardo not prevented it! None of the guards tried to stop the extreme abuse, even those who did not want to take part in it. The prisoners started to exhibit symptoms of dissociation with reality, a strong sense of hopelessness and lack of solidarity between themselves, as they were told that they could not leave the prison. Even Zimbardo himself started to blur reality with the new identity of a prison superintendent.

Zimbardo argues that even the good, smarter than average individuals will exhibit sadistic traits (that presumably exist in all of us) when placed in a situation that involves anonymity and power coercion over depersonalized subjects. He also proved how difficult it is for abused victims to stand up and defend themselves, contrary to some beliefs.

Some flaws and the lack of a strictly controlled structure of the experiment allowed more room for interpretation of the outcome. Zimbardo’s critics point out that it was not the situational power vs subjugation that was decisive in this case, but instead the very instructions supporting a particular belief that played a critical role for the behavior of the test subjects - people needed to perform roles well to meet the expectations of the experimenter (the concept of demand characteristics) and cruelty was instructed and justified via a legitimate reason - ‘‘in the name of science’’.

Regardless of the theory we side with, one fact stands out - the human psyche is fragile and easy to influence and manipulate. What conclusions can we draw and how can we apply this knowledge to our lives to make sure that we make decisions that we will later be proud of? Let’s be frank with ourselves - we obey authority much more often than we would like admit and some of us use their power as an instrument to intimidate and control. Now that we know how moldable human behavior can be, how do we make sure to stay out of the authority trap?

Takeaways.

Power abuse occurs every day and not just in extreme situations. This is why the aforementioned experiments are still very relevant to our lives today. Here is what to do to avoid the trap:

Watch out for anonymity and depersonalization as precursors of trouble. The conditions for making acts of cruelty easier that were present in the discussed social experiments - anonymity, depersonalization and coercion - are used in a number of cases in the business world, for example in firing or laying off employees by means of external help or detached messaging. Recently, a CEO who laid off 900 people via Zoom made headlines worldwide. After the massive attention from the press, he left to work with an executive coach before returning to the company with an apology. His desire to do things quickly while depersonalizing everyone had been a bad decision - not only for his subordinates but also for himself.

If you are a leader, consider if your actions in stressful situations involve any coercion, anonymity or depersonalization. Happy employees are productive employees, so what is good for them will likely be good for you.

Introduce individuals with high levels of compassion into the leadership team. Make sure the management uses them as sparring partners. Subsequent experiments in response to the Stanford prison experiment have demonstrated that people who rank high on the scale of compassion are much less likely to exhibit sadistic traits if they are not specifically forced to do so by a figure of authority. Dr. Zimbardo was presented with tests where authority was missing while anonymity and depersonalization were kept, and in these cases the threshold signifying abuse or danger was not crossed by a single one of the members from different groups.

Ask for the opinion of others who are not part of the situation. This is probably the most major piece of advice applying to both leaders and followers/employees. Zimbardo stopped his experiment after a fellow psychologist came to the basement and interrupted his exultation by saying that what she sees is not a great experiment but young boys for whose suffering he is responsible.

It also helps to ask people who do not have a vested interest in your situation. For example, if you feel stuck in a job with an abusive boss who is not leaving anytime soon, your spouse or parents may not provide you with the best advice, because they may be emotionally attached to your success and believe that if you quit your job, you will compromise your financial stability and future growth. While they may be right, once their emotional fear fuels yours, the rationality of your decisions may be jeopardized.

Set high standards of conduct and hold people accountable. Knowing that leadership behavior is a major influencer on the team, the leader would be the one to set the standards of conduct. If you have long neglected abuse at the office, there is no culprit other than the lack of good leadership that instills ethical values and makes sure that people stick to them.

Make it clear what type of behavior will not be accepted and tolerated at the office. Do it in front of everyone, without pointing fingers at anyone. Hold people accountable when they bend the rules.

Get to the root cause of your or other people’s inertia. When feeling oppressed, think what stops you from acting the way you would like to. Milgram concluded that there were two major reasons people obey authority - fear and the desire to appear cooperative. Luckily, our office lives are not a matter of life and death, even when it seems so. Are you overplaying the danger or hopelessness of changing the status quo in your mind?

Consider how long you have been part of the situation and how you think and feel now as opposed to before it started. It is hard enough to deal with short-term extreme stress. The longer oppression or abuse lasts, the more difficult it is to fight it. The moral compass can be buried deep during periods of high stress inflicted by authority, even in the case of people of strong moral integrity. Moreover, if one stays in a circle of evil for too long, one may eventually stop questioning the justification of beliefs and actions. This is how cults, deeply flawed doctrines and even toxic office environments survive. Like the prisoners in Zimbardo’s experiment, some people start believing there is no way out, which of course is far from the truth in most cases.

Have an emergency plan in place. Past behavior is not necessarily a good predictor of future behavior. Have you ever experienced a disappointment or shock when the kind colleague with whom you worked for years gets promoted to a high position and becomes unrecognizable? Sometimes people put on masks to obtain the position of power they have craved, but once they are there they no longer feel that they need to play the game and show their true colors. (Zimbardo would perhaps argue that it is the very position of power that would unleash formerly hidden or suppressed evil traits, rather than a conscious unmasking.) What is key here is to realize is that people’s actions and conduct are largely dependent on the severity of the situation and the strength of their moral integrity.

How to approach the case above? Have a risk management strategy handy before the power shift has taken place. This means analyzing the person’s interests, motives, sense of identity and other elements prior to the new position of power. People will always act in their self-interest regardless of the situation, so knowing someone’s interests well is key to your ability to determine a good approach. If you don’t feel that behavioral psychology is your strength, work with a strong coach!

Analyze the behavior of the leadership team. Do some leaders intentionally inflict emotional distress on people? Turn people against each other as a strategy to maintain power? How do they react to abuse at the office - indifference, support, confrontation?

Challenge the particular leader about the perceived misuse of power. If there is a positive affirmation and understanding, ask what steps would be taken to prevent this from happening again.

Determine who has unofficial power. Do people who are not in official leadership roles but have power on others’ actions and behavior use the power to promote an ethical environment, or do they rather manipulate others entirely for self gains? If power is not being abused, make use of these great resources to help in establishing a work environment that is founded upon solid principles of respect, constructive communication and a common goal.

Don’t believe that you can change toxic environments easily, unless you are the boss. So what should we do in an oppressive or abusive environment? A common mistake is the belief that you can change it before it changes you, as the well-known psychologist Adam Grant writes.

Toxic environments are a perfect example of the possibility to shift the moral compass to a degree where toxicity is no longer easy to fix, as the perpetrators have gotten used to committing abuse without being challenged by others (including leaders) who may lack moral courage to intervene, are indifferent or are feeling helpless.

If you are a leader, have frank discussions with all of your employees (without exception) about how they feel at the company and what would help them to feel more valued. Hear their story before you offer or impose yours. You may lose money if toxic people who are highly competent leave, but you will likely lose much more once they have ruined the morale and productivity of others.

And finally, remember that personality CAN overthrow the worst situation. Think of Viktor Frankl who survived the worst conditions a human could possibly endure by having a purpose, helping others and controlling his thoughts by studying the world he was in as an outsider…

Today happens to be the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, so I dedicate this post to every innocent person whose basic human rights have ever been denied, regardless of religion, race and nationality.