Psychology Deconstructed: Connecting the Dots Between Iconic Experiments, Real-World Scenarios, and Workplace Toxicity

Understanding the Roots of Workplace Toxicity

Picture a scenario where seemingly ordinary individuals engage in unthinkable acts under certain conditions. What drives this behavior? In my exploration of landmark psychological experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram's Electric Shock Experiment, and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, I've gained many insights about the dynamics of human nature, the environment, and the systems that control the environment. These experiments helped connect many dots about why many organizations, despite having DEI and B policies and strategies in place, still struggle with toxic cultures.

Brief Descriptions of Key Experiments

#Stanley Milgram's Experiment

Objective: To study obedience to authority figures.

Method: Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a "learner" (an actor) for incorrect answers, under the guidance of an authority figure.

Outcome: Many participants obeyed instructions, even when they believed they were causing severe pain, highlighting the extent of obedience to authority.

#Stanford Prison Experiment

Objective: To investigate the psychological effects of perceived power in a simulated prison environment.

Method: Participants were randomly assigned roles of guards or prisoners in a mock prison. The experiment was halted after six days due to extreme behaviors.

Outcome: Participants quickly conformed to their roles, with guards becoming abusive and prisoners showing severe stress, demonstrating how situational factors can lead to dehumanizing behaviors.

#Zimbardo's Concept of Bad Apples, Bad Barrels, and Bad Barrel-Makers

From my understanding of Zimbardo's research, toxic behavior can be attributed to:

Bad Apples (Inner Disposition): Individual traits leading to negative behaviors.

Bad Barrels (Environment): Situational factors promoting harmful behaviors.

Bad Barrel-Makers (System): Systemic structures creating environments conducive to negative behaviors.

Zimbardo also explained #the Psychology of Evil and pointed out the seven processes that grease #the Slipery Slope of Evil. His explanation elucidates the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal, where systemic issues led to the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers.

The same explanation also brings to light how the inactions of management lead to workplace toxicity and defeat the purpose of DEI and B policies.

How #Management Inaction Leads to the Slippery Slope of Evil Zimbardo's work outlines how the slope begins:

1. Mindlessly Stepping into a New Environment: Lack of clear guidance can lead to confusion and negative behaviors.

2. Dehumanizing Others: Ignoring disrespect creates an environment where dehumanization is tolerated.

3. De-individualizing the Self: Not valuing individual contributions reduces employees' sense of belonging.

4. Diffusing Personal Responsibility: Without estalishing Positional accountability, employees may shirk responsibility.

5. Blind Obedience to Authority: Encouraging unquestioned compliance can lead to harmful directives.

6. Uncritical Conformity to Group Norms: Failing to challenge negative behaviors promotes harmful norms.

7. Passive Tolerance of Bad Behavior: Not addressing bad behaviors signals acceptance, lo confusion and negative behaviors.

Reactive Behaviors and Management Inaction

Reactive behavior in the workplace mostly stems from limited beliefs, personal blind spots, personal biases, or low emotional intelligence. These biases are like weeds; they will surely grow if the right measures are not taken to prevent their spreading, impacting the growth of the crop/organizational culture.

Research References:

1.???? Conformity and Attribution Bias:

Studies have shown that biases such as conformity bias, where individuals' views are swayed by group opinions, and attribution bias, where behaviors are wrongly attributed to personal characteristics, are prevalent in workplace settings. (Emerald).

2.???? Subtle Discrimination:

Subtle discrimination, often unnoticed, can persist and even be exacerbated in environments that do not actively counteract these behaviors (Cambridge_org).

3.???? Inclusive and Supportive Environments:

Creating an inclusive and supportive environment, with active intervention and commitment from leadership, is crucial to combating these biases effectively (EHL Hospitality).

Conclusion From these experiments and real-world examples, it is evident, how profoundly environments and systems impact human behavior.

A well-thought-out #change strategy with an effective #execution plan is crucial for the successful implementation of initiatives that require employees to operate from an open and inclusive mindset. This strategy must be designed with three core drivers in mind: the people, their environment, and the systems that support this environment.

It requires deeper reflection to identify the common thread that promotes and supports the positive influence and interaction among all these elements. By creating a holistic strategy that integrates these core drivers, organizations can lay the groundwork for genuine and lasting change, fostering a workplace where #inclusion and #belongingness are not just aspirational goals but everyday realities.

In the next part, we shall delve into practical solutions to combat workplace toxicity. Join me to explore possibilities for achieving lasting positive change in the workplace, supporting and promoting DEI and B behaviors, policies, and strategies.

Parkhi S. Tamil Selvi Velmurugan Farhan Sayani Akash Kumar Mohd Adil Ali Anuradha Mehra Kshama Agrawal Kshama Priyadarshini Ameya Samant Aniruddha Athawale Roopa Balachandran Babli Khatri Sandeep Bhardwaj Dr. Sandeep Shetty