Obedience to authority is a natural human tendency that has both positive and negative implications. On the one hand, obedience to legitimate authority can help maintain order and social cohesion. On the other hand, blind obedience to authority can lead to disastrous outcomes, particularly when the authority figure is perceived to have unlimited power and control. One of the most well-known experiments that examined the effects of obedience to authority is the Milgram experiment, which highlighted the dangers of blindly following orders without questioning their legitimacy.
In the early 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments to examine the extent to which people were willing to obey authority figures, even when their orders went against their own ethical principles. In the experiment, participants were told that they were participating in a study on the effects of punishment on learning. The participants were asked to administer electric shocks to a confederate, who they believed was a real participant, every time they made a mistake on a memory task. The shocks ranged from mild to severe, and the participants were told to increase the intensity of the shocks with each subsequent mistake.
What the participants did not know was that the shocks were fake, and the confederate was simply an actor who was not actually being shocked. The experiment was designed to test the participants’ willingness to obey the experimenter, who was the authority figure in this scenario, even when they felt uncomfortable or conflicted about what they were doing.
The results of the Milgram experiment were shocking, to say the least. Despite their discomfort and moral reservations about the experiment, most participants continued to administer shocks to the confederate when ordered to do so by the experimenter. In fact, 65% of the participants administered the maximum voltage of 450 volts, even when they believed that the confederate was in extreme pain or unconscious.
The Milgram experiment highlights the dangers of obedience to authority, particularly when the authority figure is perceived to have power and control over the situation. In this scenario, the experimenter was seen as an expert figure who had control over the situation, and the participants were reluctant to question his authority or disobey his orders. This tendency to obey authority figures even when their orders are in direct conflict with our moral values is a fundamental aspect of human psychology that has significant implications for our behavior in a wide range of settings.
Furthermore, the Milgram experiment provides important insights into the factors contributing to this tendency. One of the key factors that Milgram identified was the power of the situation to shape our behavior. In the experiment, the participants were placed in a situation in which they felt powerless and uncertain about what was expected of them. This sense of powerlessness made them more likely to obey the experimenter, even when his orders went against their own moral principles. Another critical factor that contributed to the participants’ obedience was the presence of an authority figure perceived as legitimate and credible. The experimenter was seen as an expert in his field, and as a result, the participants were more likely to trust his authority, follow his orders, and safely defer their responsibility while, in fact, they remained fully responsible.
When Things Went Off the Rails
Obedience to authority can have disastrous outcomes in various industries, including healthcare, aviation, and engineering. Here are a few examples:
The Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster: The Challenger disaster of 1986 was a tragic event in the history of space exploration, resulting in the loss of seven crew members, including a civilian teacher. One of the contributing factors to the disaster was the issue of obedience to authority, which prevented individuals from speaking up about potential safety risks.
The morning of the Challenger launch, unusually cold weather was expected, which raised concerns about the O-ring seals on the solid rocket boosters. These seals had a history of becoming brittle in cold temperatures, and engineers had warned that they could fail, which could lead to a catastrophic outcome. Despite these warnings, NASA management decided to go ahead with the launch, as they had done in previous launches where the O-ring seals had shown signs of distress. The engineers responsible for the design of the solid rocket boosters had expressed their concerns about the potential failure of the O-rings, but their concerns were overruled by their superiors, who felt pressure to meet the launch schedule.
One of the key factors that prevented the engineers from speaking up more forcefully was the culture of obedience to authority within NASA. Engineers and other staff members were taught to defer to the expertise of their superiors, who were seen as having the final say in decision-making. The engineers who raised concerns about the O-rings were hesitant to challenge the authority of their superiors and did not push their concerns more forcefully.
In addition, the engineers who raised concerns did not have direct access to the decision-makers responsible for approving the launch. As a result, the communication channels between the engineers and the management were inadequate, and their concerns were not effectively conveyed to those who could make the final decision.
The Challenger disaster is a tragic example of how obedience to authority and a lack of communication can lead to catastrophic consequences. The engineers who raised concerns about the O-ring seals were hesitant to challenge the authority of their superiors and did not push their concerns more forcefully. The lack of effective communication channels between the engineers and the management also contributed to the failure to address the safety risks. The disaster serves as a reminder of the importance of encouraging individuals to speak up and take responsibility, and of the need for effective communication channels to ensure that safety risks are properly addressed.
Tenerife Airport Disaster: The Tenerife airport disaster of 1977 is considered the deadliest aviation accident in history, with 583 people losing their lives. The disaster resulted from a collision between two Boeing 747s, one belonging to KLM and the other to Pan Am, on the runway of the Los Rodeos airport in Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
One of the key factors that led to the Tenerife disaster was the issue of obedience to authority. The captain of the KLM plane, Jacob Van Zanten, was an experienced pilot who had been with the airline for over 20 years. He was highly respected and regarded as one of the best pilots in the industry. He was also the head of KLM’s flight training program and was involved in developing the airline’s safety procedures.
When the KLM plane arrived at Tenerife, it was scheduled to refuel and then take off again to its final destination. However, due to a bomb explosion at another airport, many flights were diverted to Tenerife, which caused congestion and delays. The KLM plane had to wait for over an hour for its turn to take off.
During this time, the captain and his crew became increasingly frustrated and impatient, as they were running out of flying hours and had a tight schedule to maintain. They had also been informed that the weather was deteriorating and there was a risk of the airport closing due to fog. The captain decided to take matters into his own hands and make a quick takeoff without waiting for clearance from the air traffic control tower.
The air traffic controller, who was under immense pressure and stress due to the congestion and delays, misunderstood the captain’s intentions and did not grant him clearance to take off. However, the captain believed that he had received clearance and proceeded to take off, colliding with the Pan Am plane that was still on the runway.
The captain of the KLM plane was an experienced and respected pilot in charge of the flight. He was responsible for making decisions and leading the crew, and his authority was unquestioned. However, in the case of the Tenerife disaster, the captain’s decisions were flawed and ultimately led to the collision. Despite this, the copilot and flight engineer did not question the captain’s authority, which had significant consequences.
Firstly, the copilot and flight engineer did not challenge the captain’s decision to take off without clearance from the air traffic control tower. The captain had decided to take off without proper clearance, based on his own assumptions and impatience, and the copilot and flight engineer simply went along with his decision, even though it was against established safety procedures.
Secondly, the copilot and flight engineer did not challenge the captain’s assessment of the fog conditions at the airport. The captain believed that the airport was about to close due to fog, which was one reason he was in a rush to take off. However, the copilot and flight engineer did not independently assess the fog conditions or question the captain’s assessment, which ultimately led to a flawed decision.
In both of these cases, the copilot and flight engineer were following the captain’s authority without questioning his decisions, even though they had a responsibility to speak up if they believed that something was wrong. This is a clear example of how obedience to authority can lead to a failure to take responsibility and challenge decisions that could have disastrous consequences.
Explosion at the BP Texas City Refinery in 2005: The explosion resulted in 15 deaths, injured over 170 people, and caused widespread damage to the refinery.
In the months leading up to the explosion, the management at the BP Texas City Refinery had put pressure on the workers to increase production and reduce costs. As a result, the workers were overworked and under-resourced, and the refinery was not adequately maintained. Despite this, the management continued to prioritize production over safety, and the workers felt pressure to follow their orders.
In addition, the workers had been trained to follow strict protocols for restarting a unit that had been shut down, which involved a series of steps and required approval from management. On the day of the explosion, a unit was shut down for maintenance, and the workers were tasked with restarting it. However, due to miscommunication and poor training, the workers misunderstood the protocol and began the restart process without approval from management.
The workers were unaware of the potential danger of the equipment they were operating, which had been modified and had a history of leaks and problems. Despite this, they followed their orders and started up the unit, leading to the explosion.
The disaster at the BP Texas City Refinery is an example of how obedience to authority can lead to disaster in the industrial sector. The workers followed the orders of their superiors, even though they knew that the refinery was not adequately maintained and that the equipment was potentially dangerous. This failure to speak up and take responsibility ultimately led to a catastrophic outcome, with loss of life and extensive damage.
How Can We Address This Issue?
Combating the effect of obedience to authority is critical to preventing disastrous outcomes in various settings. Here are some strategies that can help combat the adverse effects of obedience to authority:
Encourage critical thinking and independent judgment: One of the best ways to combat the effect of obedience to authority is to promote critical thinking and independent judgment. Encourage individuals to think for themselves, ask questions, and challenge assumptions. This can help prevent blind obedience to authority and promote a culture of transparency and accountability.
Provide education and training: Education and training are essential tools for combating the effect of obedience to authority. By providing individuals with the knowledge and skills they need to make informed decisions, they will be better equipped to think critically and independently, even in situations where they may feel pressure or control from authority figures.
Foster a culture of open communication: Creating a culture of open communication is essential for combating the effect of obedience to authority. Encourage individuals to speak up and voice their concerns and provide opportunities for feedback and discussion. This can help ensure that individuals are empowered to make informed decisions, even when the authority figure exerts pressure or control.
Encourage whistleblowing: Whistleblowing is an essential tool for combating the effect of obedience to authority, particularly in situations where there may be ethical or safety concerns. Encourage individuals to report any wrongdoing or potential hazards and ensure that there are effective mechanisms in place for whistleblowers to make their concerns known.
Hold authority figures accountable: Holding authority figures accountable is necessary for combating the effect of obedience to authority. Ensure that there are clear guidelines and protocols for decision-making, and hold authority figures responsible for their actions. This can help prevent abuses of power and promote a culture of transparency and accountability.
Key Takeaways
The Milgram experiment, the above examples, and many others demonstrate the power of obedience to authority and the potentially disastrous outcomes that can result when individuals blindly follow orders without questioning their legitimacy or considering the consequences of their actions. It is important to remember that individuals are responsible for thinking critically and independently, even when they may feel pressure or control from authority figures. Obeying authority does not absolve an individual of their responsibility for their actions. It is essential to recognize that obedience to authority should not be seen as a way to avoid taking responsibility for one’s decisions or actions. While following the orders or guidance of authority figures is often necessary in many situations, individuals still retain a personal responsibility to think critically and make informed decisions.
Blindly following orders without considering the potential consequences can have disastrous outcomes for the individual and society as a whole. In many cases, it is possible to both obey authority and take responsibility for one’s actions. This requires a willingness to think critically, question authority when necessary, and speak up and voice concerns when appropriate. It also requires a willingness to admit mistakes and to take steps to correct them rather than simply blaming authority figures or other external factors.
Ultimately, the key to balancing obedience to authority and personal responsibility is to strive for a thoughtful, nuanced approach that takes into account all of the relevant factors and considers the potential consequences of one’s actions. This requires a commitment to critical thinking and ethical behavior, and a deep understanding of one’s own values and responsibilities. By recognizing the importance of obedience to authority and personal responsibility, individuals can make informed decisions that prioritize their well-being and the well-being of society.
Finally, by promoting critical thinking, providing education and training, fostering a culture of open communication, encouraging whistleblowing, and holding authority figures accountable, we can help ensure that individuals are empowered to make informed decisions, even in situations where they may feel pressure or control from authority figures.
