Context for abusive practices in corporate America?
A sad & disturbing story in today's NYT - "Aged, Frail and Denied Care by Their Insurers". An investigative reporter looked into denied claims for long-term care insurance and found that a couple of companies have absolutely horrendous attitudes & procedures, resulting in a great deal of suffering for elderly claimants and their families. Some claims are denied via the repeated invention of essential fictional reasons; paperwork is lost by design; employees at the claim company are told they must follow certain procedures (e.g. handle every claims call within 4 minutes time, no matter how complicated) or else; etc.
The reporter found out these details by looking at depositions filed in lawsuits. Company officials themselves refused all comment except for bogus statements by flacks.
I wonder, what are the conditions that allow human beings to knowingly abuse in this manner? I've read of studies of abusive behavior at Nazi death camps etc., but have there been any studies of how corporate settings of various sorts influence behavior? It is all too easy to say "Oh, it's just the fault of a few evil executives at those companies," but this is not useful because a) it pretends there is such a thing as "evil" which is restricted to "evil individuals," and b) it doesn't help us improve our institutions and practices so that individuals will be less likely to make such horrendous decisions.
Certainly RFT might be useful as part of a model for suggesting how such behavior takes place in certain contexts, but what are those contexts? Some kind of literal distancing seems involved: Although today's news story doesn't say it, presumably those responsible for setting the policies at these two companies are at a great remove from claimants, insulated from the pain they are causing. In a roughly similar way pilots of bombers in Iraq (and every modern air war) are at a great remove from the suffering of those killed & maimed on the ground by their actions - thus making it easier to continue the destruction. But distancing alone certainly isn't a sufficient explanation.
Defy the Darkness
I encountered a book a few months ago called Defy the Darkness: a tale of courage in the shadow of Mengele, by Joe Rosenblum. This is one of those books that is so compelling you can't stop reading until it's completed. Rosenblum (no relation) who survived several death camps during World War II articulates the matter-of-factness of the Nazi bureaucracy in greater detail than I have seen elsewhere. The book gives huge insights into the link between fascism and bureaucracy.
Re: Context for abusive practices in corporate America?
I should have added - I'm aware that there is no shortage at this point of recommendations for good corporate governance. The assumption seems to be that proper governance can not only go a long way towards preventing abuses of many sorts, but is better from a P&L standpoint because scandal can depress share price & some abuses are related to bad business practices.
But I wonder whether in addition to a "best practices" approach, boards of directors, ethicists, and other concerned parties have thought to consult psychologists, and in particular behavioral analysts? "Predict & influence" seems like a perfect fit here. I have a friend who is a prof of organizational psychology (mostly sexual harrassment issues but other stuff too) and I'll ask her where I should look for studies.
Corporate Maddness
What you are describing falls more into the catagory of sociology than psychology. For example, studies have shown that if eight people ahead of you agree on a certain thing, the odds become overwhelming that you will capitulate agree with them even if you really don't agree at all. Over three hundred people, and serious fascism begins to set in as the group can no longer function on a first name basis anymore and abstract government takes over.
In the case of beauracratic style insurance companies and other large corporations, they are deliberately designed to be large, slow, and difficult to deal with as a means of fighting off corruption and fascism. Catching them in the act and fighting them with public outrage has turned into quite a cat and mouse game in recent years, and is still an evolving work in progress.
What you are describing
It's the intersections & overlaps that interest me more than assumed categories that imply separation & thus potentially discourage action.
A positive example: conflict resolution is a practice that involves both psychology & sociology, through working with individuals, groups, and cultures.
I too have an interest in
I too have an interest in such overlapping disciplines, it was merely my intention to make sure you understood the limitations of such studies.
I thought I already posted a reply to this post yesterday, but I'll try again.
I recommend the work of Jim Rough as an excellent place to begin.
http://www.tobe.net/jim/background.html
In the ninties consensus decision making became all the rage in corporate america and it is still going strong. I have fascilitated and taught consensus for over ten years now, and highly recommend it as a method for moderating aggressive behavior. It allows for a much more natural flow of conversation, which encourages the expression of much more subtle emotions and thoughts.