Know Your Audience & Milgram Experiment PDF

Know Your Audience The following categories comprise the majority of “types” of employees to whom you’ll need to tailor your message: Good Loose Soldiers Grenade...

Know Your Audience The following categories comprise the majority of “types” of employees to whom you’ll need to tailor your message: Good Loose Soldiers Grenades Cannons Understand and follow May have a good ethical May know the rules, but don’t organizational rules and policies; compass, but unfamiliar with care about them; Possess good ethical compasses company policy; Operate according to their with strong moral grounding; Lacks awareness of general own agenda, lacking Know they are expected to business ethical standards; company loyalty; question orders they believe to be Requires guidance to consider Their actions can “explode”; morally wrong; ethics in business;  MILGRAM EXPERIMENT The Milgram Experiment, conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, was a series of social psychology experiments that measured participants' willingness to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. In the experiment, participants thought they were part of a study on learning and punishment, where they were tasked with administering electric shocks to a "learner" (actually an actor) whenever an incorrect answer was given. The shocks increased in intensity with each mistake. Despite the learner's feigned screams of pain and eventual silence, many participants continued to administer shocks, believing they were required to do so by the authority figure present. The results revealed a disturbingly high level of obedience to authority, suggesting that people are capable of committing inhumane acts when directed by an authority, especially when responsibility is perceived to be deferred to that authority.  Creating Psychological Distance We touched on the Milgram Experiments as an example of people’s tendency to unquestioningly obey an authority figure. The Milgram Experiments also highlight the problem of psychological distance: when who we are affecting or “serving” are either out of sight, physically distant, or removed from us in some way, we tend to downplay the ethical outcomes of our actions towards them. This research suggests that personal responsibility for the outcomes of our decisions diminishes the potential harm is farm removed. For instance, if a manufacturing plant is located in a distant country like Mexico or somewhere in Asia, we may feel less accountable and more willing to make decisions that could negatively impact others. Similarly, when we perceive a decision as someone else’s responsibility, we’re more likely to go along with choices that harm others, rationalizing that it’s not our job to intervene.  Rewards and Discipline ( 1 / 4 ) What gets rewarded gets done Reinforcement theory is one of the main topics of psychology and management classes alike, and discusses how people tend to repeat behaviors that are rewarded and avoid those that are punished. With any kind of reward or discipline incentives in place as part of company policy, employees will always be looking for ways to gain the former while avoiding the latter. Rewards and Discipline ( 2 / 4 ) Rewards can encourage unethical behavior in associates… Imagine you’re the manager of an electronics store. Your sales associates are given commission, and get the most for selling the higher-end TVs. If you give no guidelines or ethical standards for your associates to follow, they’ll probably adopt some questionable practices to get their commission. For example, they might alter the picture or sound of lower end models in order to make them seem lower quality than they actually are, or engage in aggressive upselling that may make your customers feel uncomfortable. It’s up to your management practices to set the ethical standards for your associates to follow. If you ignore setting any ethical standards, the repercussions, including loss of good reputation that follow, likely aren’t worth the increased sales.  Rewards and Discipline ( 3 / 4 ) …and managers as well. Just as your associates will adopt the “by any means necessary” mindset, when achieving a goal, so too is your own psychology vulnerable to such incentives. When you’re caught between top management’s targets and your team’s ability to achieve them, the pressure can be intense. If goals seem unachievable due to limited resources, training, or other external conditions, you might be tempted yourself to take some unethical shortcuts. Look back to our Wells Fargo example of managers goading associates to open false accounts in order to achieve an otherwise impossible goal. As a manager, you need to resist pressure to meet unrealistic targets. Rewards and Discipline ( 4 / 4 ) What about discipline? You may have heard the common advice that rewards are far more effective than punishment, and while this is true to an extent, discipline should not be altogether tossed aside. Discipline works with the mere expectance of being detected and punished. Adults recognize fair discipline, and acknowledge when they “had it coming.” Fair discipline should fit the offense, be consistent with similar cases, and allow the employee to make their case for why they did what they did. The impact of discipline reaches beyond the individual employee being punished. Research shows when unethical behavior occurs, people expect violators to be punished.  Diffusing Responsibility in Groups As in any group, when ethically sensitive decisions are made in a business setting, the responsibility is diffused among all members of the group. The larger the group, the less accountability placed on each individual member, and the more potential for harmful acts to have no source of accountability. When you need to make a tough decision as a manager, avoid the responsibility diffusion phenomenon by: Soliciting anonymous criticism (such as with the “Instant Experience” system); Appoint a “devil’s advocate” to vouch for the opposing side; Seek the advice of external stakeholders in order to consider any viewpoints you may have missed; The Problem of Divided Responsibility In larger organizations, it’s easy for employees to not only feel like cogs in the machine, but act like them. In our globalized workplace, many positions have become increasingly specialized. While this is good for efficiency and productivity, it results in employees wearing “blinders” in regards to their role, focusing only on what’s directly in front of them, and seeing the “big picture.” Look to the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many experts have said the government agencies responsible for preventing those attacks should have been able to “connect the dots” in order to prevent them. However because of the division of responsibility, the various agencies each only had a piece of information, but not enough to make a call to put a stop to the attacks. As a manager, you need to remind your employees to think about the overall consequences their actions may entail.  People Fill Their Roles When a police officer puts on a uniform, it means they are assuming a role of protector and enforcer. They are expected to use aggression where necessary, but this can lead to unethical behavior, such as excessive use of force. This process of role-assuming is known as deindividualization, where they leave behind their personal moral center in order to fulfill their assigned role. Managers need to recognize this tendency, and think how it may lead to unethical actions. Are there conflicts between different roles, such as between organizational and professional responsibilities? Determine if changes to the jobs themselves are necessary. If no change is possible, at least you’ll be able to anticipate potential problems and be proactive about addressing them.