06 -- Groups and Authority.ppt

(1)

Groups and Authority

(2)

Every One Has Their Price



You have heard the saying that “Every You have heard the saying that “Every One Has Their Price”?

One Has Their Price”?



It means, of course, that no matter what It means, of course, that no matter what

your values, most people are willing to sell your values, most people are willing to sell

them out, if the price is right. them out, if the price is right.

(3)

An Indecent Proposal



You remember the film, “Indecent You remember the film, “Indecent Proposal?”

Proposal?”



Well, mine is a little different.Well, mine is a little different.



I would like to know how much someone I would like to know how much someone would have to pay you to kill an innocent would have to pay you to kill an innocent

person. person.



Let’s assume for this that you also would Let’s assume for this that you also would be guaranteed not getting caught.

(4)

What would be your price?



Take a minute to think.Take a minute to think.



Would you do it for a million dollars?Would you do it for a million dollars?



Would it take ten million?Would it take ten million?



Think of all the good things you could do Think of all the good things you could do with the money.

with the money.



Do you think your fellow students would do Do you think your fellow students would do it? For how much?

(5)

Student Financial Aid



Usually, in every class about a fifth of the Usually, in every class about a fifth of the class would consider it, usually for

class would consider it, usually for

between a million and ten million dollars between a million and ten million dollars



There are exceptions:There are exceptions:



In one class two students were willing to In one class two students were willing to do it for $20 and a couple of CDs.

do it for $20 and a couple of CDs.



Another student said he was willing to do it Another student said he was willing to do it for free, and anyone who would take

(6)

Low budget assassins?



What percentage of 100 people do you What percentage of 100 people do you think would kill an innocent person for think would kill an innocent person for

$20? $20?



1%, maybe 2%, 5% or even 10%?1%, maybe 2%, 5% or even 10%?

(7)

Believe it or not?



What if I were to tell you that under the What if I were to tell you that under the right circumstances, I could probably get right circumstances, I could probably get

at least 50% of 100 people to kill an at least 50% of 100 people to kill an

innocent person for $20? innocent person for $20?

(8)

How to get someone to commit

murder



Stanley Milgram showed us how:Stanley Milgram showed us how:



He designed an experiment within a He designed an experiment within a experiment. The outside experiment experiment. The outside experiment

appeared to be a study in learning. The appeared to be a study in learning. The

real experiment was a study in obedience real experiment was a study in obedience

(9)

A Shocking Experiment

 In the experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually In the experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram to a lab at Yale University. They were asked by Milgram to a lab at Yale University. They were asked administer an electric shock of increasing intensity to a administer an electric shock of increasing intensity to a "learner" for each mistake he made during the experiment. "learner" for each mistake he made during the experiment.

 The fictitious story given to these "teachers" was that the The fictitious story given to these "teachers" was that the experiment was exploring effects of punishment (for

experiment was exploring effects of punishment (for

incorrect responses) on learning behavior. The "teacher" incorrect responses) on learning behavior. The "teacher"

was not aware that the "learner" in the study was actually an was not aware that the "learner" in the study was actually an actor - - merely indicating discomfort as the "teacher"

actor - - merely indicating discomfort as the "teacher" increased the electric shocks.

increased the electric shocks.

 When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should be given he/she was verbally encouraged to continue.

(10)

A Shocking Result

 Sixty percentSixty percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt

scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts! scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

 At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any experimenter, asking who was responsible for any

harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the

experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers

seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, seemed to accept the response and continue shocking,

even though some were obviously extremely even though some were obviously extremely

(11)

Cries and silence



The “teachers” were even told that the The “teachers” were even told that the

student had a heart condition, but that did student had a heart condition, but that did

not stop them not stop them



They would hear cries of pain, screams, They would hear cries of pain, screams, and after 300 volts, nothing but silence. and after 300 volts, nothing but silence.



The “teachers” recruited in this The “teachers” recruited in this

experiment, in essence murdered an experiment, in essence murdered an

(12)

Their price?



The “teachers” were recruited to the The “teachers” were recruited to the

experiment for pay of $8, the equivalent experiment for pay of $8, the equivalent

(13)

Why?



Milgram’s study tried to explain the conflict Milgram’s study tried to explain the conflict between obedience to authority and

between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined personal conscience. He examined

justifications for acts of genocide offered justifications for acts of genocide offered

by those accused at the World War II, by those accused at the World War II,

Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their

defense often was based on "obedience" - defense often was based on "obedience" -

(14)

Groups and Authority



People often do things they shouldn’t People often do things they shouldn’t when misled by groups or authority when misled by groups or authority

figures. figures.



In addition, within groups, they often In addition, within groups, they often

pursue power at the expense of agreed - pursue power at the expense of agreed -

upon goals. upon goals.



Most people don’t realize the power Most people don’t realize the power groups have over their lives

(15)

Groups and Organizations

 To achieve most anything you have to take part To achieve most anything you have to take part in a group or organization

in a group or organization

 To take this class, you have to participate in an To take this class, you have to participate in an institution called CCSN.

institution called CCSN.

 To get fit you usually have to join a gym or a To get fit you usually have to join a gym or a team

team

 To be religious you often have to join a church To be religious you often have to join a church or similar group

or similar group

 To help others, you often have to be part of a To help others, you often have to be part of a social service organization

(16)

Higher Goals?



You might think that in all these situations You might think that in all these situations people would put aside petty motivations people would put aside petty motivations

and work towards the higher goal… and work towards the higher goal…



You might think so, but you would be You might think so, but you would be wrong.

wrong.



Think about what happens to Think about what happens to

whistleblowers when they try to fix some whistleblowers when they try to fix some

horrible mistake. horrible mistake.

(17)

Group Decision making



In addition, to such problems with authority In addition, to such problems with authority and power, there are often problems with and power, there are often problems with

decision-making. decision-making.



Risky shift Risky shift is the term for a propensity to is the term for a propensity to make riskier decisions in groups than one make riskier decisions in groups than one

(18)

Space Shuttle Challenger

 In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger, crashed In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger, crashed killing all aboard.

killing all aboard.

 The cause was determined to be a faulty “O-The cause was determined to be a faulty “O-ring”, a kind of gasket.

ring”, a kind of gasket.

 It was known by engineers to be faulty, but the It was known by engineers to be faulty, but the management wouldn’t listen.

management wouldn’t listen.

 A Congressional Investigation blamed poor A Congressional Investigation blamed poor

decision-making and recommended the case be

studied in every college and business school.

(19)

Space Shuttle Columbia

 On Feb. 1, 2003, Americans were astounded by On Feb. 1, 2003, Americans were astounded by yet another shuttle disaster – this one destroyed

yet another shuttle disaster – this one destroyed

the shuttle Columbia.

 Amazingly, again poor decision-making about a Amazingly, again poor decision-making about a known defect, this time in the wing, was

known defect, this time in the wing, was

apparently the cause.

 This time there was no Congressional This time there was no Congressional

Investigation, apparently because officials were

too embarrassed that it happened again

(20)

Group Think



Psychologist Irving Janis calls decisions Psychologist Irving Janis calls decisions like this “Group Think”

like this “Group Think”



It is where groups lose the ability to hear It is where groups lose the ability to hear other viewpoints, and start to think alike. other viewpoints, and start to think alike.



There is a reason why we say “two heads There is a reason why we say “two heads (or more) are better than one.

(or more) are better than one.



The more people involved the more likely The more people involved the more likely ALL circumstances are examined

(21)

Group Cohesion



But as groups spend time together, they But as groups spend time together, they begin subtly to value their cohesion more begin subtly to value their cohesion more

and more, that is the feelings of comradery and more, that is the feelings of comradery

and belonging. and belonging.



Eventually, they begin to think alike. Those Eventually, they begin to think alike. Those who don’t are no longer valued, and are

who don’t are no longer valued, and are soon excluded.

soon excluded.



Would you have made the decision to let Would you have made the decision to let the Challenger or the Columbia fly?

(22)

An experiment



In my classes I used to use an example In my classes I used to use an example based on the Challenger disaster.

based on the Challenger disaster.



Instead of a space shuttle, I said it was a Instead of a space shuttle, I said it was a race car; instead of an O-ring, a engine race car; instead of an O-ring, a engine

head gasket. head gasket.



People were divided into groups and given People were divided into groups and given the same data as the NASA managers.

(23)

Stifling Dissent



In every group, there was at least one In every group, there was at least one person who didn’t want to race.

person who didn’t want to race.



But in every group, they were voted down.But in every group, they were voted down.



In some groups, students, turned away In some groups, students, turned away their chairs so they didn’t have to pay their chairs so they didn’t have to pay

(24)

Cohesive Groups



In government or corporate leadership In government or corporate leadership circles the problem may be even worse. circles the problem may be even worse.



There cohesive groups form at the top far There cohesive groups form at the top far more cohesive than student groups.

more cohesive than student groups.



Bad decisions like the US invasion of Bad decisions like the US invasion of Cuba in 1961, the Iran-contra deal in Cuba in 1961, the Iran-contra deal in

1986, the Firestone tire scandal in 1999, 1986, the Firestone tire scandal in 1999,

and the 2003 Iraq invasion are typical and the 2003 Iraq invasion are typical

(25)

Cohesion and decision-making

 Cohesive groups have good qualities: they are Cohesive groups have good qualities: they are the best at getting things done.

the best at getting things done.

 But they are the worst at decision-making, But they are the worst at decision-making, research shows.

research shows.

 The scariest thing is something else the The scariest thing is something else the research reveals:

research reveals:

 Cohesive groups have THE WORST DECISION Cohesive groups have THE WORST DECISION MAKING but they have THE HIGHEST

MAKING but they have THE HIGHEST

CONFIDENCE IN THEIR OWN DECISIONS!

(26)

It’s food for thought.