I sat at my desk scrolling through my LinkedIn feed one afternoon, irritated by all of the advertisements poorly disguised as helpful posts, when an actual post caught my attention. You probably saw it too; I’m pretty sure it went viral. It was a picture of a sign in a small business requiring face coverings. The gist of it was, been vaccinated, we don’t care, had Covid-19 and are immune, we don’t care, have a health condition that prevents you from wearing a mask, you shouldn’t be out in public. Following the list of five or six justifications and responses, the sign stated, “face coverings required here, no exceptions.”
Not surprisingly, there were hundreds of comments about the post. One comment, in particular, stood out to me because the person referred to the sign as “a simple request.” I found their use of the word “request” interesting. To me, the sign language was not only flippant but authoritative. A request implies you can choose to change your behavior at the bidding of another person or not. An order (command, rule, directive, law) is from an authoritative power using their higher status to direct your behavior with the expectation you will submit to their will – that you will obey.
The sign was clear. Obedience was expected, no questions, no discussion. Of course, prospective customers had a choice not to enter the establishment, which would have been my choice; surely, there were other options close by. But where does this approach leave employees?
I’ve had what I consider similar experiences at work. Not about-face coverings, but other important business decisions impacting me, my co-workers, and customers. It made me wonder, do employees receive instructions from their boss as a request or an order? If you have direct reports, is it your intent to make a request or give an order? And what impact does this have on performance?
Personally, the expectation for obedience with no discussion pretty much makes me want to do the exact opposite. Even when I choose to obey because the costs of disobeying are more than I’m willing to pay, I’m still angry and likely hostile because, in my mind, someone is acting as if I’m not capable of thinking critically and making an informed choice. They are using authoritative power to make decisions and control the environment.
Don’t get me wrong, to live and work together effectively, people have to obey shared customs and laws. The problem is blind obedience. Science tells us that many people readily accept the influence of authority, even when that means behaving irrationally, to the extent of causing potential harm to another person.
In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram carried out studies to find out how the Nazis managed to get ordinary people to take part in the mass murders of the Holocaust. The experiment showed that obedience to authority was the norm, not the exception. A similar conclusion was reached many years later in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Excessive confidence in authority is a serious risk factor for a business and its stakeholders. It can lead to unsafe conditions and poor quality, sometimes with catastrophic results. Just ask the British Petroleum (BP) executives, who, in 2009, confidently downplayed potential risks associated with their oil well located in the Gulf of Mexico. They assured employees and regulators that it was virtually impossible for a major accident to occur. Months later, an oil rig exploded, killing 11 workers and resulting in a massive oil leak that spanned more than a mile underwater. Even if the results aren’t catastrophic, blind obedience leads to higher costs, a lack of continuous improvement and innovation, and dissatisfied customers and employees.
Over time, a person in an environment where unwelcome or unpleasant things happen to them, and they have no control to stop them, depression and disengagement will eventually follow. Learned helplessness is two words every leader should fear because in the words of Dan Cable, a Professor of Organizational Behavior at London Business School, it’s “a three-headed monster”. In his book Alive at Work: The Neuroscience of Helping Your People Love What They Do, he explains that learned helplessness (1) alters our emotional states (we grow resigned), (2) lowers our motivation (we no longer even try), and (3) changes our cognitive reasoning (we generalize our experience to other environments).
When people work under these conditions – where red tape keeps them from getting important work done, where they encounter repeated problems they’re unable to address and no one seems to care, or where people are repeatedly blamed for problems or publicly embarrassed, they become cautious, anxious, and wary. Hopelessness and fear set in, leading to employees who don’t speak up about problems, opportunities, or ideas.
An open mind encouraged to think critically is the solution. Critical thinkers examine, engage, and analyze. They ask why and how. Making a request and discussing the why and how with employees, allowing them to make an informed choice gets leaders’ support and commitment to taking action and succeeding. Using power and control to give an order gets you blind obedience which hurts people and companies every day, whether in customer relations, employee matters, or other business areas.
When an employee questions the why and how of decisions, do you see it as valuable critical thinking skills? When they offer input without being asked, do you listen and ask questions to clarify or treat their behavior as disruptive?
The most effective leaders understand the power of informed choice, not only for making high-quality decisions but in driving employee engagement. They help employees understand shared goals and values, talk about objectives and outcomes, and invite employees to participate in decision-making. They respect and show appreciation for diverse people who think critically and speak up.
I don’t know if the owner of that small business invited their employees to participate in the decision to require face coverings or not. My guess is not. The person comfortable posting a sign for customers and employees written from such a controlling mindset is likely comfortable making unilateral decisions and telling people what to do. Even if they don’t verbalize it or even realize they’re saying it, the approach clearly says, “I don’t care about your feelings, opinions, or concerns; if you don’t like my decision, find somewhere else to work.”
What message do the language and practices in your organization send? Could you inadvertently be telling people to blindly obey or find a new place to shop or work? I believe it’s time for organizations and leaders to realize the power and effectiveness of informed choice at work and stop relying on the outdated theory of control and efficiency.