Home  /  Newsroom  /  Insights  /  Obedience to Authority in the modern military

Obedience to Authority in the modern military

Examining the psychology and the challenges of giving orders

What is obedience and why is it important in the military? What factors influence or enhance obedience to authority? Are today’s soldiers less obedient than those that served 20 or 50 years ago? Does obedience to authority need to be safeguarded in the modern military? If so, how can or should this be achieved? These are some of the key questions that this article will address. 

Obedience is the tendency of individuals to comply with authority figures, even when doing so contradicts their moral or ethical beliefs. In essence, it can be seen as a form of social influence that occurs when a person submits to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure. 

Why is obedience important in the military? Obedience is a fundamental pillar of the functioning of a military organisation because it helps ensure predictability of behaviour and enables the speed and efficiency required for the collective actions typical of military operations. It is also at the heart of military professionalism because the battlefield demands unhesitating obedience in situations in which, adopting the logic of civilian life, it would seem quite reasonable to refuse an order—such as in the interests of one’s personal safety—but which in the context of a battle is necessary to protect the safety of others or achieve a mission’s objective. Moreover, and probably most importantly, obedience to a military authority reflects a character trait that demonstrates trust in one's superiors and confidence in the legitimacy of military demands.

The most famous and influential study on obedience to an authority was undoubtedly Stanley Milgram’s 1963 experiment on obedience at Yale University. The experiment involved forty male volunteers who were told that they were participating in a study about the effects of punishment on learning. They were divided in two groups—labelled learners and teachers. The so-called teachers and an authority figure—Milgram himself—were in one room, while the learners were in another.  Each teacher was instructed to help another subject, purportedly like himself, to learn a list of word pairs. Each time the learner made a mistake, the teacher was to give the learner an electric shock using an shock generator with 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts. During the experiment, the learner and authority figure were colluding with one another to monitor the behaviour of the teacher. The learner pretended to be in pain when shocked. Moreover, the teacher was told—even if a learner falsely vocalised concern—to increase the shock level each time the learner made a mistake, until dangerous levels were reached. 

The Milgram Experiment.

Milgram found that two-thirds of the teachers administered even the highest level of shock, despite believing that the learner was suffering great pain and distress. Milgram concluded that the teachers had acted in this way because they were pressured to do so by an authority figure.

Milgram enjoyed relative “freedom of action” conducting the experiment. 

Today, it would be simply impossible to have the same freedom, using unaware participants in experiments that might lead to unwanted consequences. 

Interestingly, requiring informed consent started to become normal in the mid-1970s and, by the mid-80s, obedience research had pretty much ended worldwide. This has left open the question whether obedience levels are any different today than they were when Milgram conducted his experiment or if compliance with authoritarian social roles has increased or decreased over years. 

A moment of Milgram's experiment

The best available evidence suggests that if Milgram's research could be conducted today, the results would be essentially the same as what Milgram found over a half century ago: more or less the same two-thirds of people would presumably also obey an authority figure who pressed to punish learners that make mistakes; that is, today people would still administer shocks, up to the highest level, if an authority figure asked them to do so, despite believing that the learner was suffering great pain and distress.

The question now focuses on the factors that Milgram identified almost 60 years ago that still influence obedience to an authority today.  First, Milgram argued that people typically operate in one of two ways when faced with social situations: they can act autonomously and choose their behaviour, or they can enter an agentic state, where they carry out orders from an authority figure and do not feel responsible for their actions. 

We can infer, therefore, that the most relevant aspect of applying the well-known “mission command” concept is the fact that higher Commands need to be ready to accept that the level of obedience will inevitably tend to decrease. Additionally, it is clear that military leaders who do not assume ultimate responsibility for the actions of their subordinates are unlikely to command high levels of obedience.

The proximity of the authority figure also affects the level of obedience. To test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%, as the teacher was able to experience the learner’s pain more directly. Milgram found then that the closer you place the teacher to the learner, the fewer shocks the teacher is likely to administer. Equally, the further you place the learner away from the teacher, the less the impact they are likely to have. In simpler terms, this factor suggests that the continuous presence of an authority figure in the working environment of their subordinates is crucial for enhancing obedience.

Milgram conducted his original research in a laboratory at Yale University. To test the power of the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down building in Bridgeport (Connecticut). In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%. This suggests that the status of location affects obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a reduction in the level of obedience. Just as private research firms are often perceived as less prestigious than certain universities, some barracks—partly due to their physical appearance—may be seen as less appealing, comfortable or prestigious. This perception can directly influence attitudes and behaviours related to obedience.

In most of Milgram’s variations the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor. Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another “participant” in ordinary clothes, who was in fact also in on the experiment. In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the leaner made a mistake. The percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power of uniform. This suggests that an authority figure who frequently delegates issuing orders to close staff may experience a decline in the level of obedience from subordinates. Finally, Milgram highlighted probably the most important factor affecting obedience: legitimate authority. Variations on location and uniform highlighted that the lack of a uniform and a questionable position of authority reduced the credibility of the authority, which meant the participants were far less likely to obey. In other words, for a person to obey an instruction they need to believe that the authority is legitimate.

In conclusion, in everyday situations – including in the military – people obey orders because they perceive them as coming from a legitimate authority present in their environment. 

They are motivated by a desire to gain rewards, avoid the negative consequences of disobedience and often justify their actions by shifting responsibility to the authority rather than assuming it themselves. 

There is no evidence to suggest a need to safeguard obedience to authority in the military today, as the fundamental dynamics remain unchanged and are likely to persist in the future. What is probably needed, however, is a deeper awareness of the factors that shape, enhance or challenge obedience.

Story by Lieutenant Colonel  ITA ARMY Gennaro BALZANO (NRDC-ITA)