Conflict with your own values

The obedience experiment of Stanley Milgram and what it means for leaders today

In the 1960s, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment that has gained great place in the history of psychology (Milgram, 1963). He wanted to examine how far ordinary people were willing to go in following orders, even when it could harm others. The results were unsettling, and have since been used to understand both historical horrors and challenges of modern working life.

But the experiment also provides important learning points for leaders. Because what really happens in an organization where people stop asking questions, and just “do as they are told”?

What did the experiment entail?

Participants thought they were taking part in a study about learning and memory. They were instructed to give another person (really an actor) electric shocks every time he answered incorrectly on a task. The shocks increased in strength with each failure. The actor shouted and begged to be allowed to quit - but participants were encouraged to carry on with simple but definite messages:

“Please continue.”

“The experiment requires you to continue.”

Even when visibly troubled, many continued right up to the highest level. Milgram's experiment (1963) showed with all clarity how strongly authority and external pressure can influence us.

Learning - what does it mean for leaders?

Milgram pointed to several mechanisms that explain why people act against better knowing:

The power of authority - People obey more easily when the messages come from someone with a status, uniform or role.

Disclaimer of liability - The participants believed that it was the experimenter who was in charge, not themselves.

The power of the situation - Behavior is shaped by the framework in which we are, not only by the values we have.

Rationalization - People find explanations that make their own actions easier to live with.

For managers, this means:

• It is not enough to have values on the wall. You need to actively create a culture where people actually dare to speak up, including to you.

• Be conscious of how your role as a leader influences the judgment of others. When you give a message, it is not always interpreted as a choice, but as an order.

• Make room for employees to ask questions, and show that you appreciate disagreement. It's a sign of healthy culture, not resistance.

Why this is still relevant

Today we often talk about psychological safety as a key factor for learning, responsibility and ethical practice. Research shows that when this reassurance is lacking, people remain silent, even when they see something that is not true (Edmondson, 2018). In the workplace, this means that loyalty to management or the system can cause employees to act contrary to their own values, for example by accepting unethical sales goals, turning a blind eye to bad practices, or staying silent about critical mistakes.

As a leader, it is important to ask yourself the question: Have I created an environment where it is actually allowed to say “No, I'm not comfortable with that.” If the answer is no, it could be that people act “right” outwardly - but feel the turmoil and conflict of values on the inside.

Criticism and nuances

Milgram's experiment has been hotly debated. Participants were subjected to severe psychological stress without being informed of what they were really participating in; today, such experiments would not be approved. At the same time, the debate surrounding the experiment led to the development of ethical standards in research. There are also more recent interpretations. Haslam and Reicher (2014) argue that participants were not only “blindly obedient”, but that they identified with the authority and its purpose. It gives an important nuance: people do not necessarily do something they think is wrong - they interpret the situation so that they think it is right.

This shows that leaders also need to be clear about the purpose behind decisions and priorities. If the goal seems unclear, employees can act in a way that seems obedient but essentially violates the intention.

What can we take with us next?

Milgram's experiment reminds us that humans are vulnerable to external pressures, even when they want to do the right thing.

For managers, that means:

• Talk about values, but more importantly: live them.

• Create psychological security so that people dare to voice doubts and ask questions.

• Be aware of the kind of signals you send, even between the lines.

• Build cultures where responsibility lies not only “upwards” but is also taken “laterally” and “downwards”.

‍

Leaders should ask questions like...

• What kind of obedience do I create?

• How do I notice that my role as a leader influences what others dare to say - or not say?

• Have I experienced someone doing something “just because you said so”, even if it wasn't meant as an order?

• How do I signal that it is permissible to disagree with me?

‍

References

Milgram, S. (1963). The Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 371—378.

Edmondson, A.C. (2018). The Fearless Organization. It's Wiley.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Smith, J. R. (2014). The Contours of the Agentic State: Further Explorations of the Psychology of Obedience. Social Psychology, 45 (5), 315—319.

The Decision Lab. (2021). System 1 and System 2 Thinking.

VUCA-World.org. (2025). Leaders with Vision, Understanding, Clarity, Agility!

The Stanley Milgram Papers (MS 1406). Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.