An interview by Adam Turteltaub (adam.turteltaub@corporatecompliance.org), CHC, CCEP, Chief Engagement & Strategy Officer, SCCE & HCCA.
AT: People see wrong around them all the time, whether at work or at home, yet few say anything. What I found fascinating in your book is that you argue it’s not that they see something wrong, it’s fear of embarrassment that gets in the way.[1] Can you explain the dynamic?
CS: One of the biggest factors that leads people to stay silent is their tendency to look around at what others are saying or doing—for help in interpreting what’s going on. But here’s the problem: If everyone is looking at what everyone else is doing, and no one wants to be seen as overreacting, then no one steps up and acts. In other words, inaction breeds inaction.
A few years ago, a student was in my office—a very good student who was on the basketball team—and he shared with me a story: “Every day in the locker room, someone says something offensive. And sometimes I say something, but usually I don’t.” And what occurred to me about that story is that it’s highly possible, even likely, that most other students in that locker room also recognized that what they heard was offensive. But each of them looked to the others, and assumed—by their silence—that he was the only one who found the comment offensive. And that situation plays out not just in locker rooms, but in all sorts of situations: on public transportation, around the Thanksgiving dinner table, in boardrooms, and so on.
AT: You also write that we are less likely to come forward when there are others around when we see something wrong. What stops us?
CS: There’s a natural human tendency to reduce effort in group settings—what is often described by psychologists as “social loafing.” This is why many students hate group projects—in which each person reduces effort so that they aren’t doing more than their fair share of the work. It’s also why restaurants typically impose a mandatory service charge on parties of five or more, because in groups, each person reduces their own contribution and the wait staff therefore isn’t adequately compensated. This exact same dynamic plays out when we see something wrong but are in a group setting; we tend to assume that others will step up, so we don’t have to. In other words, we experience a diffusion of responsibility.
AT: What I find interesting and troubling is how strong group dynamics are. Part of it is peer pressure, which I’ll address in a moment, but part of it is a fear of being excluded. How much of the fear is real, and how much of it is just worry?
CS: Great question! There’s fascinating research in neuroscience showing that feeling ostracized by our social group activates the exact same part of the brain as experiencing physical pain. So this finding tells us that experiencing social pain—being personally rejected—actually feels the same at a neurological level as experiencing physical pain, such as stubbing your toe or spilling hot coffee on your arm. And we’re highly motivated to avoid such pain, which is one reason we tend to avoid deviating from members of our group.
AT: Let’s go back to the peer pressure element. It’s not just something that kids feel; adults face it every day in terms of cultural norms of what we do and how we act. Anyone who acts in spite of it can face negative consequences, and that’s especially true for whistleblowers who point out wrongdoing. What makes us turn a blind eye to reporting within our group?
CS: Well, we’ve already discussed two factors: ambiguity about what’s happening (and our tendency to look to other people, who are also not sure what’s happening so they don’t act) and reduced effort in a group setting (or social loafing). But another factor is clearly the fear of consequences, including social and professional consequences. Many people fear that reporting wrongdoing will have negative repercussions, and this fear is well founded, as numerous historical and present-day examples illustrate. And organizations that want to reduce wrongdoing of all types—from offensive language to sexual misconduct to corporate fraud—need to create strategies to protect people from harm for reporting bad behavior and to foster a culture that recognizes the value in identifying problems, especially at a relatively early stage, before such behavior escalates.
AT: Is this what makes it so hard to recognize the virtue in others who won’t turn a blind eye?
CS: This is a complicated question, because in some cases, people who finally do speak up are praised for doing so; it’s just very hard to be the first person to say something. We can see many historical examples of people who refused to turn a blind eye, and those people are now seen as heroes for stepping up, even in the face of personal risk.
We also often want to be seen as virtuous, but we don’t want to actually risk the potential costs of speaking up. Many women and people of color recall times in which something derogatory has been said to them in a meeting, and no one spoke up at the time, but later on, they received private emails or calls from people who stayed silent at the meeting but wanted to share their outrage. This type of private support isn’t as useful as speaking up at the moment, because silence in the face of bad behavior implies support for such behavior.
AT: I often think that part of this is tied to our hatred of being wrong and having to question our own judgments. Is that a factor here as well?
CS: It’s certainly true that people fear looking stupid and feeling embarrassed, and that can inhibit us from acting. I give the classic example of being in a class in which the professor says, “Do you have any questions?” and you do have a question, but as you are deciding whether to raise your hand, you look around and see no one else raising their hand. You then decide that you are the only one with a question, so surely it must be a stupid question, and thus you don’t ask it. But what’s fascinating here is that you know exactly why you then choose to not raise your hand: fear of looking stupid. But when you look around at everyone else also not raising their hands, you assume that their behavior—which is identical to yours—is driven by something else entirely: they are smart and thus don’t have any questions!
AT: You advocate for what you call “moral rebels.” This kind of rebel isn’t someone who wants to throw off the shackles of conventional morality, as some might think.
CS: Moral rebels are people who are willing to defend their principles in the face of potentially negative social consequences such as disapproval, ostracism, and career setbacks. They speak up in all types of situations: to tell a bully to cut it out, to confront a friend who uses a racist slur, to report a colleague who engages in corporate fraud. This tendency is what unites, for example, actor Ashley Judd, who came forward to report Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment despite his threats to ruin her career if she did so, and Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz, who spoke out about the company’s practices even while facing both personal and professional repercussions.
AT: I found it fascinating that in many ways moral rebels are made around the dining room table as kids growing up. Can you explain the dynamic that helps create them?
CS: Moral rebels often have parents who have demonstrated moral courage in their own lives. Many of the civil rights activists who participated in marches and sit-ins in the southern United States in the 1960s had parents who displayed moral courage and civic engagement, as did many of the Germans who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. Watching people you look up to show moral courage can inspire you to do the same.
Moral rebels also tend to be high in empathy; they are pretty good at imagining the world from someone else’s perspective. They’ve often spent time with and gotten to know people from different backgrounds, which probably helps them develop higher levels of empathy. For example, high school students who have more contact with people from different ethnic groups—in their neighborhood, at school, and on sports teams—have higher levels of empathy and are more likely to speak up if they hear an offensive slur and to defend someone who is being bullied.
Finally, moral rebels are basically good at arguing. One study found that teenagers who argue more with their parents are actually better able to stand up to peer pressure later on, because they’ve practiced making effective arguments and sticking to them under pressure.
AT: I think that gives tremendous reassurance to every parent who has had a long, uncomfortable argument with their kids. But can moral rebels be made among adults?
CS: Moral rebels clearly have particular characteristics that enable them to stand up for what’s right. But even for those of us, which is most of us, who don’t naturally have those traits, it is indeed possible to develop the ability to stand up to social pressure—that is, learn to be a moral rebel. How? You need to develop skills and strategies for speaking up, such as:
-
Finding a short and clear way of expressing disapproval (“What do you mean by that?”);
-
Assuming a comment is sarcastic in your response (“Don’t joke about that. Some people really do think women are too emotional to be president.”); or
-
Making the concern about you, not them (“My sister was sexually assaulted, so that comment is hard for me to hear.”).
And it’s not enough to learn the different techniques for confronting bias or unethical behavior; practicing them is essential. Practicing helps reduce our inhibitions about speaking up, makes responding feel more normal, and increases our confidence that we can intervene in a real-world situation.
AT: What can organizations do to help foster an environment that creates moral rebels?
CS: Problematic behavior hurts organizations of all types—from corporations and universities, to military and intelligence agencies, to hospitals and police departments. And eliminating this bad behavior takes more than just identifying a few bad actors, or even creating a few more moral rebels (although that’s a very good start)! Workplaces need to foster a culture in which ethical behavior involves doing what’s right, not protecting the bad behavior of coworkers. So, how do you change the culture? Three key steps:
-
Hire ethical leaders who model such behavior and reward such behavior in others;
-
Make it clear that unethical behavior isn’t acceptable at any level, no matter the person’s position; and
-
Create a culture in which speaking up is an accepted part of the workplace and in which all employees have a shared responsibility for maintaining an ethical environment.
In other words, create a culture that rewards moral rebels instead of silent bystanders.
AT: Thank you, Catherine!