A few decades ago, Stanley Milgrim famously discovered that people’s sense of obedience is greater than our sense of personal judgment.
About two-thirds greater, actually.
Milgrim had subjects deliver electric shocks to strangers any time the strangers erred in answering a question. And though subjects could hear the strangers’ screams as the power of the shocks ratcheted up, two-thirds of them followed instructions rather than stop the experiment. (Note: the strangers were actors. No one was hurt. Still, psychologists rewrote their code of ethics because of Milgrim’s work.)
Milgrim’s findings are disturbing on a lot of levels. The social implications are enormous. But, so too are business implications that have been almost completely overlooked in nearly half a century.
Based on Milgrim’s findings, we can deduce that our focus on formal org charts and job descriptions will lead to twice as much inappropriate use of statements like “I can’t help you, that’s not my job” as actual problem solving. This has nothing to do with an individual’s “lack of initiative.” It is be explained entirely by Milgrim’s findings: humans are more obedient than conscientious.
Think about that: as much as two-thirds of the “laziness” problem we have in business is the direct result of our current management practices!
So, what should you do to make your organization stronger, more effective, more efficient, and more resistant to economic shocks (not to mention more humane)?
Ditch the hierarchy, flatten the structure, remove the reserved parking signs. Ruthlessly dismantle any hierarchical structures that are not absolutely imperative to smooth-functioning operations. In their places, install communications tools to help disseminate goals, stories, and expert advice to every corner of the company.
I can almost hear you calling your legal department. Hang on. The logic behind this approach goes like this: if people adhere to authority over their own good judgment, and if people generally have good judgment (…and since you hired them, we’ll assume they do…), then people need to be free of meddling authority if they are to use their own good judgment.
Let me repeat: sharing goals instead of job descriptions, victory stories instead of best practices, expert advice instead of scripts, and case studies instead policies will increase the level of initiative shown by your employees.
Bothered by Milgrim’s findings? Me, too. So do yourself a favor, and make sure your company isn’t a working version of his laboratory.
‘Doh… you made me think!
Interesting connection Jason… I do wonder if the “authority” issue is the cause of laziness or the excuse for laziness and lack of responsibility.
I guess that is academic in that in either case the result is the same and that’s what we need to change.
When I was doing corporate gigs and had larger staffs, I used to constantly ask the question – assume no one has the authority to make a final decision except you – what would you do? Invariably the solution was different when they didn’t have to worry about someone else second guessing them (and the solution was much better.)
Jason – Milgrim’s study, along with the Stanford Prisoner experiment, were my favorites from Psych 101. The stanford prisoner experiment had similar results in which people insisted on performing their set roles, no matter what the cost.
I think one of the keys here is to redefine what “getting ahead” in corporate America really means.
@Paul When coaching, I ask others a very similar question… “Assuming 100% responsibility for making the outcome successful, and zero tolerance for failure, what’s your next step…?”
@Amy The Stanford exp. is a good one… all the experiments on this topic show the same thing; the brown/blue eye students (which cost an elem teacher her job), The Wave (remember that After School Special?!), etc. Obedience > Conscientiousness… so if you want individual thought, you need to remove formal authority structures as much as possible.
Great post Jason. Big companies are always the worst here too. That is why I love entrepreneurship. Everyone is focused on the single goal of getting the company up and running. Org charts mean little to nothing. The goal is the focus!
Again, nice job.
Steve Woda
http://www.stevewoda.com
First, I agree that people in business are waaay too quick to dismiss things as outside of their scope. But, I also have a theory as to why it is this way. 1) Increasing demands placed on individuals make them (us) inclined to decline to commit to things that will prevent us from efficiently reaching our defined goals or objectives. 2) Structured divisions of labor promote habits and patterns which are not easily disrupted by one-off requests. 3) Fulfilling requests outside of someone’s defined scope can open the doors of legal liability so employees risk being reprimanded (or worse) for doing things which are beyond the definition of their jobs.
I try to be a consummate professional and regularly seek to exceed my client’s expectations. But, I also risk ineffective allocation of time. So, some companies want robots and thus encourage dogmatic behavior. Those same companies routinely also discourage autonomy, no matter who may benefit.
Todd, sometimes, one off requests should be ignored. But ideally, the request should be mentally processed before being dismissed. And if an action could open you up to reprimand or legal liability, the answer isn’t to ignore the action, it’s to raise the issue with your boss… who in theory exists to help you address those issues that are beyond the scope of your specific division of labor.
Just because 2/3rds of us are more obedient than we are conscientious, that doesn’t mean we necessarily *see* things that way. (In fact, another psychological theory suggests that we go out of our way to convince ourselves that the problem isn’t US, it’s THEM.)
In other words, your boss doesn’t want a robot, and you don’t want a boss who wants robots, but that’s what you’re both going to see the first time you start having challenges, because it’s easier to point the finger and say, “Hey, Buddy, I was follow the rules, the problem must be you!” than to take initiative/risk to challenge rules that aren’t working.