The Power Of The Situation

A focus on the individual is often a priority for many involved in the prevention of harm, however a focus on the situation is often missing.

A basic premise of social psychology assumes that people’s thoughts, actions, and behaviours are influenced substantially by the situation – ‘the power of the situation’.

In 1971, a team of psychologists designed and undertook an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing prisoners and guards to test the power of the social situation to determine behaviour. The research, known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individual attitudes, values, and behaviour.

So extreme, swift, and unexpected were the transformations of character in many of the participants that this study, planned to last two-weeks, had to be terminated by the sixth day.

A few years back I was fortunate enough to meet and chat with Dr Philip Zimbardo one of the psychologists involved.  Now I’m aware of the criticism directed at Zimbardo around the ethics of this experiment, however this infamous experiment highlighted the power of situation on a range of individuals, including Zimbardo himself.  Whilst many focus on the behaviour of the students assigned the role of guards I was fascinated and curious about the impact on Zimbardo himself.

During my chat with ‘Dr Phil’ he made it clear that he became a passive bystander to what was going on.  His now wife suggested their relationship might end unless he stopped the experiment.  Needless he stopped the experiment, and they later became husband and wife.

This past week we were faced with another negative media story connected to UK policing.  The story referenced a recent meeting where the elected Police and Fire Commissioner for Northamptonshire used the term ‘Bitch’ to describe a senior fire chief officer.  Link to story.

Like many I was shocked to hear this, but I wasn’t surprised.  In the last few weeks, we have passed the third anniversary of the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving UK police officer.  Whilst much has been done to communicate improvement in the way police responds to issues of men’s violence against women and girls, the same cannot be said for the way it has looked at itself and the harmful and misogynistic behaviours we continue to see by those connected to policing. 

Whilst policing has seen an increase in the number of staff identified and ‘got rid of’, the fact that this is continuing, suggests that policing has much to do to address the situation, the culture that has led to the man involved thinking he could get away with speaking to a woman in this way.  Whilst police leaders seem happy to call out this behaviour it’s simply not enough to say that those in the profession abhor the behaviour.

Since the murder of Sarah Everard, we have seen case after case of attitudes, behaviours, and actions of individuals within policing that are abhorrent.  The question is why after these past years are they still occurring?  Does the current culture within UK policing play its part? 

Policing has a code of ethics which is designed to communicate what is and what is not acceptable.  These ethics also place a responsibility on those within policing to report certain behaviours when they are observed.  It’s very clear that despite such a code of ethics many in policing remain silent when faced with harmful behaviours.  Does the situation contribute not only to the harmdoing but the silence from those around both victims and harm doers?

The use of the term ‘Bitch’ is such an open forum suggests that this man’s actions are unlikely to have been completely hidden in the past and its possible that a lack of challenge has contributed to the behaviours that have occurred.  Silence for me is akin to an infection that allows harm to continue and most likely evolve.  The power of the situation played its part in this event.

So, what can be done to create the situation where acts like this just don’t happen?  What can be done to keep those who commit harm in check?  

1.  Swift visible leadership is needed from those around the harm-doer to point out that a behaviour isn’t tolerated in the setting.  Such leadership is on all within a workplace culture and not just on those in leadership roles.  We are all guardians of a culture.  There’s a positive, when one person speaks up.  Not only do we keep harm-doers in check we make it ok for others to act when they witness harm.  What you promote you permit.
2. Senior leaders set the tone for a culture, and they must get better at making it ok for others to act.  A sense of responsibility is the biggest motivator for those who observe harm.  To leaders everywhere make it ok for your staff to speak to you if you upset someone or make a mistake.  We’re human after all.
3. Organisations like police and Fire thrive on team loyalty.  Redefine loyalty to mean stopping a colleague from doing something that could be career ending for them.  By doing so you help make intervention a norm rather than a transgression against the norm.  Having critical friends plays a part in any successful team.
4. Accountability is key.  This does not have to be official if addressed early.  Peer accountability is powerful and can help address an incident quickly.  It nips it in the bud as we say.  Lastly
5. Reward and protect those who do speak up when harm occurs. 

We won’t ever really get an understanding of why the abuses happen if we close the book too quickly.  The reactionary statements by police leaders aren’t enough.  A deeper understanding can be gained from digging beneath the surface and bringing the best of what we know from social science to try to understand it.