 |
| Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/76HhAKI5JXI |
In the early 70s a group of religious students at Princeton were gathered by a researcher to complete a survey about their religious beliefs. Once they completed the survey, they were asked to provide a brief lecture on the Parable of the Good Samaritan from the Bible. (The parable is about a person who was robbed, beaten, and left on the side of the road. Several religious leaders passed by the victim, except for the Samaritan who stopped to help). The researcher told the students the lecture would take place in a building across campus where they would meet up with another person from the research team. Then the students were randomly selected to be told one of the three statements:
- They had plenty of time and were early for the presentation.
- They were on time but needed to leave immediately.
- They were late and should rush to the other building.
On the path to the other building, each student came across a person on the sidewalk who was obviously injured and in need of help. Only a small number of students from the three groups stopped to help the injured person. When they arrived in the other building, the researcher revealed the students were part of an experiment, and the injured person was another member of the research team.
The findings of this study showed how sometimes our intrinsic beliefs, or how we view ourselves, does not always align with how we act in practice. Another revealing aspect of this study was how students who were in a rush had the lowest results in terms of helping the injured person.
Results
There are several underlying factors that also may have impacted the results. The prestige associated with being a student at Princeton and the innate responsibilities that coincide with this persona may have influenced their decision. The authority of the researcher could have influenced how students perceived the importance of the lecture. Students who are driven to succeed would have been far more focused on delivering a good lecture than what is occurring in their environment. The competitive drive among student to impress the researcher or their colleague could have also been a driving force behind their inaction.
While we would like to imagine ourselves as part of the helper group, we know this is not always the case. We generally have a good understanding of our principles, values, and frameworks. We use these mental models to build our self-concept and serve as an instruction manual for functioning in the world. Things start to get interesting when these models are tested by external situations and pressures.
Leadership
One time I joined a contract that was already one week in operation. I knew the leaders, everyone on the team, and the deliverables. Within the first day, numerous people from the team approached me in private to say how terrible things were going. It wasn’t long until I confirmed the same sentiment from most of the team the deliverables were drastically different from any time in the past. The other common theme was how no one raised their concerns with the leadership about the conditions.
When I heard this, I was not really surprised. The leaders were deeply embedded in the authoritarian leadership spectrum: in groups and out groups, favorites and enemies, one-dimensional, opposition to change, and most of all stifling of different ideas. It was also well known among the team the leaders often viewed any question or suggestion as a direct form of dissent.
There was a team meeting the next day with about 60 of us packed into a room. The leadership group gave a highly scripted report that intentionally excluded any of the concerns held by the team members. Finally, the leader presented their script with a very stern and direct tone. They concluded with a feeble attempt at opening for questions. The room was silent. I scanned to see if anyone would say anything. Silence.
I asked the question. The leader couldn’t hide the look of disgust before a word came from my mouth. I asked the question and everyone in the room focused intently on the leader for a response. It was obvious the question was viewed as a personal attack and the response was equally defensive. A weak rationale was presented, and nothing was going to change. The meeting ended.
Was I fired? No. Did my team and I get assigned the worst tasks for the remainder of the contract? You better believe it! Regardless, they were glad I asked the question.
Lessons
Once you read the Good Samaritan Study you are never the same. You start to question how well you can truly align your values and actions. There are many times when we don’t align. This is inevitable. Our intrinsic, inner world can provide us with a solid foundation. This system serves as our theory. The various situations we encounter in life present us with opportunities to test our theory in practice. Sometimes the results are not what we expected. I am certain the students who did not stop to help the injured person went through a process of deep introspection and gained situational awareness.
We can learn and grow from those
moments when we stray from our core values due to pressure of external factors.
Whether we align with our inner values or conform to external pressure - either
way there is a price to pay that will make “all the difference.”