Corporate Culture: Mechanism of Conformity

It is commonplace in America to decry conformity, and rightly so, in the country that moved individualism from a hoped-for ideal to something taken for granted. Yet the phenomenon persists despite two centuries of philosophical grounding (and decades of psychologists’ support) praising individualism.

Some would say this is fundamentally the consequence of other philosophical influences tending in the opposite direction. Others would argue that it is a biological imperative. In any case, though Einstein's Law of Gravitation may be fundamental, when trying to explain why a particular tennis ball moved along a particular path, it’s more useful to look closer to home.

Now, in America, adult decisions are not typically made under threat of physical coercion. Most are taken in the context of possible loss of other values, or the desire to achieve some, and the less overt, but still powerful, pressure to conform.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conformity as "compliance with conventions," and of course whether this is good or bad may depend on what those conventions are. But the connotation of the term, especially when used derogatorily, suggests that it isn't the fact of compliance, but the reason: If one 'goes along' with others simply because they are others, and ignores what one is going along with and why, this shows a lack of independent judgment and failure of courage, not to mention a willful disregard of potentially harmful facts.

Take an average business project, for example. The (hypothetical) Thompson Corporation faces a lack of IT resources to monitor ongoing failures of the central file servers. When those servers fail, much time is spent recovering them to make the needed disk space for new files and existing documents available again.

Knowing there is insufficient budget to purchase new equipment or sophisticated software, Engineer Joe proposes to install an inexpensive monitoring system to warn support engineers of pending slow downs, automatically remove old and rarely used documents, and raise an alarm in the case of actual failure.

He carefully calculates how much capital, time, and labor would be required, knowing the current workload of those who would be involved in implementing the proposed solution, as well as the list of other ongoing and near-term projects.

His proposal is turned down, not on the grounds that it's too costly in terms of hard dollars or human resources, but because no one wants to approach the CEO with the request to issue a memo stating the document retention policy, knowing what a political hot potato that is.

Note that during the process described, which takes place over several months, the servers continue to fail often and at random. Productivity suffers, frustration grows. Pressure mounts on the IT department managers to generate a solution; a meeting among them and a few staff members is held.

During the meeting, Engineer Joe again proposes his solution.

But Joe isn't very smooth, socially speaking. He tends to be slightly aloof, and his considerable intelligence and acknowledged ability is accompanied by less than ideal social skills. He's not rude or insulting, but his fact-oriented, quietly proud persona rubs many of his co-workers and most of the managers the wrong way.

He doesn't play volleyball with his co-workers on the company court during lunch and he doesn't discuss his personal life, nor show much interest in that of others. Though born after the singer's death, he prefers Bobby Darin songs to Radioactive Virus Puke.

Joe's solution isn't declined, simply passed over. Instead, the participants jockey to avoid blame and shift responsibility, being careful to say nothing that would potentially annoy anyone. (They haven't yet found to whose opinions it's safe to conform.) Another meeting is scheduled to discuss the agenda they never got to.

After a series of meetings in which no agreement is reached, a deadline is set by the CFO for resolution of the problem. Managers' nervousness peaks; no more delays can be tolerated. During a ten minute meeting, at which the VP of IT is present, the following occurs: Joe again proposes his cost-effective solution. It's ignored. The VP, who's a golfing buddy of the CEO, asks for options. At first, no one speaks. Then:

Scenario one: A senior engineer, not very competent but well liked as a result of his regular gym visits and his pleasant demeanor, proposes a solution that everyone present knows will alleviate the problem for three months at best. Joe attempts to show why this will be a band-aid and why his long term solution should be preferred. Everyone present, though they privately acknowledge the correctness of Joe's reasoning, agrees publicly they should go with the senior engineer's proposal.

Scenario two: The VP approves an out-of-budget capital expenditure for new hardware, (Joe's known original recommendation, for which he receives no credit), not because the VP belatedly sees the long term wisdom of this solution, but because he knows the CFO will have to go along this time, or face the CEO's wrath, and the VP can take credit for having solved the problem. Everyone present nods approvingly as if the VP is an operational genius.

Scenario three: The IT Manager, who has no expertise in the area but who once read an article in Computerworld on the subject, proposes the purchase and implementation of a $100,000 software package that does less to address the problem than the $1,000, one-engineer-one-week- to-implement package Joe proposed. The package will take six months, three engineers, a project manager, and the involvement of several department managers to implement.

(If you think I'm exaggerating for effect, you've never worked in a large corporation. And, by the way, I'm not Joe.)


There are many moral failures in all three of the scenarios — dishonesty, evasion, irrational thinking — to name a few. But focus here specifically on the mechanism of conformity. How is the decision reached?

Do each of the participants argue pros and cons of various workable solutions — solutions arrived at by consideration of the cost, technical facts, and available human resources? To a degree, but largely the participants are silent or non-committal until someone of influence (whether by dint of title, or connection to someone with official authority) makes a proposal.

Then they passively agree, knowing they won't be blamed, and having little concern for any ill consequences. (If you think I'm interpreting motives ungenerously, ask your co-workers after they've taken jobs at another company.)

In every case, the concern is less for solving the real-world problem in a cost-effective manner, and more for ensuring that they are in agreement with the expressed opinions and values of the other participants, particularly those 'in power' — as an end-in-itself.

That is to say: Everyone knows the problem is no specific person's fault, nor only one person's responsibility to solve. Everyone present knows that neither their jobs, nor promotions and raises, nor any other practical benefit is on the line. (As a matter of sad fact, it's extremely rare in large corporations for managers to be fired for poor performance.) The motivating pressure is purely psychological.

What should Joe do in these circumstances? I’ll discuss that in Part II.


Jeffrey Perren is a novelist with a background in Physics and Philosophy. His latest novel, The Geisha Hummingbird (in progress), is the story of a ship designer whose fiancé disappears on the eve of her wedding, amidst a whirlpool of industrial espionage.