About the same time as Eichmann’s trial, in 1961 Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, started exploring the question why people follow authority, even considering unthinkable consequences. “He (Milgram) was seeking an answer to the pertinent question: ‘Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?’”[i] Milgram’s controversial experiment used three people – “the experimenter,” “the teacher,” and “the learner.” Both the experimenter and the learner were in cahoots, and the real test was to see how far the teacher would go, if prodded by an experimenter in a white lab coat. The fake experiment had groups of two people, chosen to participate. Allegedly the two participants “randomly” selected a piece of paper, assigning whether they were the “teacher” or the “learner.” Unbeknownst to the real subject, both sheets of paper said “teacher,” but the stooge always claimed to be the learner. Let the phony experiment begin!
The bogus back-story about the alleged experiment supposedly tested whether increasing electric shocks could help people remember word pairings. Before the experiment started, the teacher was administered a low dose of electricity by a machine, to feel it was real. After this, the learner was removed to another room, behind a barrier obstructing their view. With each wrong answer, the teacher was instructed by the experimenter to increase the voltage.
Conflict arises when the man receiving the shock begins to indicate he is experiencing discomfort. At 75 volts, the “learner” grunts. At 120 volts he complains verbally; at 150 he demands to be released from the experiment. His protests continue as the shocks escalate, growing increasingly vehement and emotional. At 285 volts his response can only be described as an agonized scream.[ii]
As the learner’s cries grew louder many teachers tried to stop participating in the experiment. After each of the teachers’ protests the experimenter said these statements in the following order:
In Milgram’s first experiment, 65% (26 out of 40), blindly followed orders, and were willing to administer a seemingly lethal 450-volt shock.
Soldiers, psychology subjects, and staff have faced the pressure to obey authority figures. So, how does the “I was just following orders” defense work with low and mid-level white-collar criminals? It’s not an excuse, but may help as a strategy for better treatment, when prosecutors use them as legal chum to catch bigger fish. When government attorneys just follow the trail of those just following the orders, they can eventually “trade up” to the senior executives who issued them. What’s the prosecutorial motivation and reward? Another high-profile conviction. Another press conference. Another notch in the belt. Another promotion. Another day in the office.
RECOMMENDATION: Almost everything values-based leaders need to know about conformists, can be learned in a college PSYC 101 class. Along with Milgram, psychologists from A (Asche) to Z (Zimbardo) have studied the question about how “normal,” “good” people, can first have their judgment subordinated, then persuaded to do unimaginable acts. While Milgram explored authority, Asche (Milgram’s mentor) and Zimbardo examined the influence groups have on our behavior.
Most people try to avoid conflict. They like fitting in with the group and understand the need to follow orders. It may seem counterintuitive, but employees should be willing to stick out from the crowd. By offering diverse perspectives, their teams will be stronger and come to better solutions than they would from polite head nods from corporate toadies too afraid to speak their minds. Einstein recognized the danger of conformity in a July 8, 1901 statement to Jost Winteler, “Slavish obedience to authority is the greatest enemy of the truth.”[iii] This same sentiment is captured in the 20th century bumper sticker/t-shirt – “Question Authority.” This can be good advice, but it should be followed by, “Do it in a respectful way.”
[i] Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis, Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey, (Woodstock, VT: Longhill Partners, 2010), 106.
[ii] Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper Collins, 1974), 4.
[iii] Robert Schulmann, “Einstein’s Politics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, ed. Michel Janssen and Christoph Lehner (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 426.
Search the site
When Michael Woodford uncovered Olympus’s hidden $1.7 billion losses, he chose integrity over silence. His whistleblowing came at great personal cost—ostracized by colleagues and ousted as CEO—but his courage exposed
I’m not perfect—never have been, never will be—but that’s okay. My work matters, and I’m growing every day. Even on the toughest days, I remind myself that I’m moving forward,
For years, compliance teams and legal departments have wrestled over who should lead and who should support. A dedicated compliance‑program lawyer could bridge that divide—someone who understands the law, advocates
Everyone in the office whispered about ‘The Shark,’ a fearsome compliance evaluator said to sense every flaw in a program and every rule break in a heartbeat. I braced myself
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.