By Nilesh Bhagat, CHRP

In his book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini says authority works within the following framework: when there is a legitimate authority figure, we’ll tend to submit to that figure’s orders because “(i)nformation from a recognized authority can provide us a valuable shortcut for deciding how to act in a situation” (p. 218). He uses Stanley Milgram’s famous obedience study to demonstrate how we’re all suckers to authoritative figures. Milgram’s experiment investigated the effects of an authority figure (in the form of a ‘researcher’) on compliance (in the form of a ‘teacher’ administering increasing shocks to a ‘learner’); the results showed that two-thirds of participants obeyed commands from the authority figure in administering high-voltage shocks to a peer (shocking, right?).

I would like to argue, however, that this automatic response to authority is outdated and isn’t as powerful as it was at the time of Milgram’s brilliant experimentation. That’s right. I’m saying that if we replicated Milgram’s study today (and controlled for the knowledge of his experiment), we’d see a different response from participants. That’s not to say that no one would submit to authority in the way his participants did (65% went through to the highest voltage of shock), but I’d guess that fewer than the two-thirds of subjects would fully give up their behavioral autonomy to an authoritative figure.

Here’s why…

The participants of Milgram’s study were immersed in the era of industrialization for the masses and the influences of that economy were at work in shaping the broader, societal culture of the time. These structures were designed for control and efficiency and empires were built upon the one-size-fits-all paradigm. The traditional hierarchy, where a distinct authority figure sat at the top, was born out of this shift. Consequently, people of the time were taught to believe that this type of structure was the only way; that the efficiency and control as dictated by an authority figure was how success was made. The ‘click whirr’ phenomenon was at its strongest – as exemplified by Milgram’s experiments.

Today, the story is different. We live in the most connected age ever, which has resulted in an increased level of empathy and understanding of one another – the more connected we are to each other, the more we are likely to understand things from their perspective, leading to higher levels of trust between individuals and within groups. What results is a radically different relationship between people and groups, which has noticeable effects on our economic structure. A different organizational (and societal) structure has emerged, where diversity, skill and knowledge from all levels of the organization come together to influence decisions. This shift is evident in the ‘flatter’ organization that exists across business and the general shift away from command, control and secrecy to openness, transparency and collaboration. Taken together with the values of incoming demographic set to flood our workplaces, what remains of yesterday’s command and control culture are quickly becoming obsolete.

David Pink says in his book, Drive, ‘control leads to compliance; autonomy leads to engagement’. We live in an era of autonomy, where we are engaged on so many dimensions with our environment.

As a result, I think you’d see a radically different response to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study. Rather than look to the authority figure for direction, I think today’s participants would weigh cues from their peers (the ‘learners’ of this experiment) heavier than they would the authority figure (the ‘researcher’ of this experiment) – a shockingly beneficial outcome for all.

Nilesh Bhagat, CHRP, is the membership and CHRP administrator at BC HRMA. After several gruelling years in school, Nilesh graduated in October 2010 from Simon Fraser University with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration, First Class Honours. He majored in Human Resources Management and tacked on an extended minor in Psychology. He’s a self-confessed nerd (the first step is admitting), likes to read, loves hockey and is struggling with the complexities of learning the game of golf.