|
|
|
|
When a crisis occurs, centralization of control is significantly increased with leaders tightening reins, concentrating power at the top, and minimizing participatory decision making [1]. Even where there are strong beliefs in the “democratic way of life”, there is always a tendency in institutions, and in the larger containing society, to regress to simple, hierarchical models of authority as a way of preserving a sense of security and stability. This is not just a phenomenon of leadership – in times of great uncertainty, everyone in the institution colludes to collectively bring into being authoritarian organizations as a time-honored method for providing at least the illusion of greater certainty and therefore a diminution of anxiety [2]. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes a great deal of sense. Terror Management Theory has experimentally shown that reminding people of their own mortality enhances and strengthens their existing world view, religious beliefs, group identifications, and their tendency to cling to a charismatic leader [3]. When danger is real and present, effective leaders take charge and give commands that are obeyed by obedient followers, thus harnessing and directing the combined power of many individuals in service of group survival. Fear-provoking circumstances within an organization are contagious. Within a group, emotional contagion occurs almost instantly and predictable group responses are likely to emerge automatically [4]. Threatened groups tend to increase intra-group attachment bonds with each other, and are more likely to be drawn to leaders who appear confident, take control and are willing to tell other people what to do. Longstanding interpersonal conflicts seem to evaporate and everyone pulls together toward the common goal of group survival producing an exhilarating and even intoxicating state of unity, oneness and a willingness to sacrifice one’s own well-being for the sake of the group. This is a survival strategy ensuring that in a state of crisis decisions can be made quickly and efficiently thus better ensuring survival of the group, even while individuals may be sacrificed. Under crisis conditions, the strong exercise of authority by leaders coupled with obedience to authority by followers may be life-saving. In a group confronted by new, unique and dangerous conditions, if someone in a position of authority - or someone with the confidence to assume authority - gives orders that may help us to survive, we are likely to automatically and obediently respond. But, when a state of crisis is prolonged, repetitive, or chronic there is a price to be paid. The tendency to develop increasingly authoritarian structures over time is particularly troublesome for organizations. Chronic crisis results in organizational climates that promote authoritarian behavior and this behavior serves to reinforce existing hierarchies and create new ones. Under stress, leaders are likely to feel less comfortable in delegating responsibility to others and in trusting their subordinates with tough assignments when there is a great deal at stake. Instead, they are likely to make more decisions for people and become central to more approvals; this in turn builds a more expensive hierarchy and bureaucracy [5]. Communication exchanges change and become more formalized and top-down. Command hierarchies becomes less flexible, power becomes more centralized, people below stop communicating openly and as a result, important information is lost from the system. “It is the increased salience of formal structure that transforms open communication among equals into stylized communications between unequals. Communication dominated by hierarchy activates a different mindset regarding what is and is not communicated and different dynamics regarding who initiates on whom. In situations where there is a clear hierarchy, it is likely that attempts to create interaction among equals is more complex, less well learned, and dropped more quickly in favor of hierarchical communication when stress increases”, p. 138 [6]. The centralization of authority means that those at the top of the hierarchy will be far more influential than those at the bottom, and yet better solutions to the existing problems may actually lie in the hands of those with less authority. “There is a tendency to centralize control during a crisis period, to manage with tighter reins and more power concentrated at the top. The need for fast decisions may preclude participative processes. But this is risky. Centralization may transfer control to inappropriate people; if top managers had the ability to take corrective action, there might have been no crisis in the first place”, p. 243 [1]. In this way, “the same process that produces the error in the first place, also shapes the context so that the error will fan out with unpredictable consequences”, p. 140 [6]. Lipman-Blumen has studied the dynamics of leadership and has recognized that “Crises can create circumstances that prompt some leaders, even in democratic societies, to move beyond merely strong leadership to unwarranted authoritarianism. In tumultuous times, toxic leaders’ predilection for authoritarianism fits neatly with their anxious followers’ heightened insecurity….. Set adrift in threatening and unfamiliar seas, most of us willingly surrender our freedom to any authoritarian captain”(p.99-100) [7]. 1. Kanter, R.M. and B.A. Stein, The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. 1992, The Free Press: New York. 2. Lawrence, W.G., The presence of totalitarian states-of-mind in institutions., in Paper read at the inaugural conference on 'Group Relations', of the Institute of Human Relations, Sofia, Bulgaria, 1995. Accessed November 23, 2006 at http://human-nature.com/free-associations/lawren.html. 1995. 3. Pyszczynski, T., S. Solomon, and J. Greenberg, In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror. 2003, American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C. 4. Hatfield, E., J. Cacioppo, and R.L. Rapson, Emotional Contagion. 1994, Cambridge University Press: New York. 5. Ryan, K. and D. Oestreich, Driving Fear out of the Workplace: Creating the High Trust, High Performance Organization. 1998, Jossey Bass: San Francisco. 6. Weick, K.E., Making Sense of the Organization. 2001, Blackwell: Malden, MA. 7. Lipman-Blumen, J., Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians - and How We Can Survive Them. 2004, Oxford University Press: New York.
The following notes are from The Authoritarian Specter, by Robert Altemeyer, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996 Right-wing Authoritarianism
Authoritarian Submission
Authoritarian Aggression
The power of authority figures to direct the hostility of authoritarians against almost any target increases the danger of authoritarian aggression to all in a society. Robert Altemeyer, p.11, The Authoritarian Specter Conventionalism
The authoritarian rejects the proposition that social customs are arbitrary and that one group’s customs may be as good as another’s. Other ways of doing things are wrong. Robert Altemeyer, p.11, The Authoritarian Specter Milgram’s Obedience Studies
A potential for acceptance of right-wing totalitarian rule exists in countries such as Canada and the United States. This acceptance boils down to essentially an attitude, a state of mind, a willingness to see democratic institutions destroyed, which in some people may even be a desire. Robert Altemeyer, p.8, The Authoritarian Specter The mood of a populate can create a climate of public opinion that promotes totalitarian movements. It can intimidate politicians, journalists, and religious leaders who might otherwise oppose repression. It can elect a dictator into office, as it did most notably in Germany in 1933. It can encourage a bold, illegal grab for power, as it did in Italy in 1922, and has violently done in so many other places since. And once the power is grabbed, who will resist? Who will love democracy enough to face the tank in Tiananmen Square, versus those who will cheer for the dictator? Robert Altemeyer, p.8, The Authoritarian Specter
Right-wing authoritarianism is a personality trait developed on the premise that some people need little situational pressure to submit to authority and attack others, while others require significantly more. Robert Altemeyer, p.8, The Authoritarian Specter Social Learning Model of Authoritarian Development
Cognitive Behavior of Authoritarians
Let us say that you are a crooked, unscrupulous person who wants to win high public office. You will say whatever you have to say to get elected. Which block of voters are you going to target? The High RWAs of course… their votes are yours if you just say the right things about law and order, the flag, patriotism, abortion, tax cuts and so on… Robert Altemeyer, p.110-111, The Authoritarian Specter
Then comes the dessert: even if it comes to light someday that you are a crook, or sold arms to Iran, we know the high RWAs who supported you all along will still believe in you for a long time, come what may. Robert Altemeyer, p. 111, The Authoritarian Specter High RWAs stand about ten steps closer to the panic button than the rest of the population. They see the world as a more dangerous place than most others do, with civilization on the verge of collapse…. Authoritarians always perceive society as going to hell in a handbasket. Robert Altemeyer, p. 100, The Authoritarian Specter High RWAs can be easily frightened, which makes them vulnerable to precisely the kind of overstated, emotional, and dangerous assertions a demagogue would make. Robert Altemeyer, p. 101, The Authoritarian Specter Right-wing authoritarians’ incredible credulity encourages manipulators to take stands that will be popular with them…High RWA voters are such an easy sell, they attract the unscrupulous. And because their votes can be locked up simply by advocating their causes, their issues are more likely to set the political agenda in a country. Robert Altemeyer, p. 111, The Authoritarian Specter Double Standards in High RWAs
Global Change Game, pp. 130-136.
Highs Blindness to Themselves
|
|
Send mail to
webmaster@SanctuaryWeb.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
