Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature of authority in power
Implications for authentic leadership
Implications for authentic leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. The Stanley Milgram “Obedience” Study was an experiment conducted at Yale University in 1962 by Milgram, who’s goal was to test the power of obedience to authority. Milgram was in search to understand how the Nazis, who were normal German citizens, could willingly inflict pain onto innocent people. In order to find the answer to this, Milgram decided to perform a research that measured the willingness of an ordinary individual to commit cruel acts on a civilian. The experiment had an intricate set up which involved three participants that all had a different role. There was the “teacher”, “learner”, and “authoritative figure” who was dressed in a lab coat and posed as a scientist. The learner and authoritative figure were actors who were …show more content…
Certain leaders have more power in persuading their followers and making them do as they say than others. One type of effective leader is a transformational leader. A transformational leader leads people by giving their followers a sense of purpose and a common goal (Chambliss and Eglitis pg. 111). In the Milgram study, the authoritative prop told the unsuspecting teacher that the purpose of the research was to see if people learn more effectively if there’s a punishment. Whenever the teacher was doubting his actions, the leader gave reassurance by saying lines like, “…it’s absolutely essential for you to continue…” (The Milgram Experiment Documentary), which helped encourage the participant and make him believe that what he was doing was necessary. That’s a quality that a transformational leader possesses. Another form of authority which people respect is legitimate authority. Legitimate authority is a type of power that is recognized as rightful by those over whom it is exercised (Chambliss and Eglitis pg. 111). For example, in the Milgram study the authoritative prop was heading a scientific experiment and wore a white lab coat which insinuated he was a scientist of some sort. This would make the teacher assume that he possessed credentials. The teacher, therefore, put his trust in that this leader knew what he was doing and saw his power as legitimate
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure. The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
Stanley Milgram, author of "The Perils of Obedience," conducted an experiment at Yale University to see if average citizens would partake in a study revolving around obedience to authority (Milgram 78). In said experiment, a professor from Yale would give an ordinary individual the authority to shock another person. If the ordinary individual asked to stop, the professor would coax them to continue and remind them they hold no responsibility (78). Not only did Milgram 's study revolve around obedience to authority, it also stressed the point of every person could be capable of torture and doing so without feeling responsible. In the article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," author Marianne Szegedy-Maszak states, anyone can
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
Summary Dr. Stanley Milgram conducted a study at Yale University in 1962, in an attempt to understand how individuals will obey directions or commands. This study became known as the Milgram Obedience Study. Stanley Milgram wanted to understand how normal people could become inhumane, cruel, and severely hurt other people when told to carry out an order, in blind obedience to authority. This curiosity stemmed from the Nazi soldiers in Germany, and how their soldiers could do horrible acts to the Jews. To carry out his study, Dr. Milgram created a machine with an ascending row of switches that were marked with an increasing level of voltage that could be inflicted on another person.
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
quite a lot when it has taken out the element of harm and by making
Stanley Milgram’s article “Behavioral Study of Obedience” was published in volume 67 of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. The article discusses the experiment led by Milgram to determine how willing a person is to harm another individual if ordered to do so by a superior individual. Milgram based this study of off the question that asked “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” The participants of this experiment were males between the ages of 20 and 50 who had attained different levels of education and worked in various occupations. They were under the impression that they would be participating in a study of learning and memory at Yale. As payment
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
Persuading others of your vision requires knowledge and a clear strategy (Business Dictionary). Leadership is a natural quality that comes up as responsibility in exchange of having followers with, in return, the followers creating a leader. Concluding that leadership in general cannot be taught, as per the Trait Theory, we argue that it is different characteristics in different situations that result in good leadership. The Trait Theory points out that there is a certain type of person making a good leader, with the decisive factor being: having or not having distinctive qualities of being a leader. Despite that, being an effective leader still can be trained. External and internal influences impact the effectiveness and must be considered in order to succeed. Which leads us to the Behavioural Theory, thinking of what a good leader actually does. Kurt Lewin developed three leadership types such as the autocratic leader who is a maker, someone who makes decisions without consultation with others. Contrasting, the democratic leader who consults with others (a team, for example) before making a decision. Laissez-faire leaders, as the name already indicates, occasionally lets other people make decisions, doesn’t
When power becomes legitimate, it is then recognized as authority (Denhardt et al, 2001). Power becomes authority when it is accepted and even desired by society. As stated by the course study notes, “authority refers to a situation where a person (or group) has been formally granted a leadership position”. An individual has authority when everyday norms and regulations support the exercising of power by that individual. In an organizational setting, “authority is hierarchal and vested in positions” (Week 9 Study Notes), which are defined by “organizational charts, positions and rules” (Week 9 Study Notes). Generally, power in authority also involves the possibility of rewards such as promotions and good performance reviews.