Mormons are sometimes criticized for their unquestioning obedience to authority. Statements like “When the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done,” and the Primary song “Follow the prophet” come to mind as well as the belief that even if leaders are mistaken, we should follow them. Do Mormons have an unhealthy respect for authority?
In his new book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell shares some interesting and scary information that correlate plane crashes with a cultural respect for authority. He shares the story of a specific plane crash on Korean Air in which an analysis of the dialogue as recorded on the “black box” clearly shows (to someone who understands the language and what its built in deferential markers mean) that at least 2 of the crew members knew they were off course and in danger of crashing, but would not directly tell the pilot out of respect for his authority. Because the pilot was exhausted and stressed out, he failed to notice their hints and instead flew the plane into the side of a mountain in foggy conditions, killing over 100 passengers & crew.
This problem is related to Power-Distance Index, or the cultural expectation of respect for hierarchy. The PDI differs greatly from culture to culture and is ingrained into that culture, insinuated in both language & customs. Countries with high PDI had the following characteristics:
- High reliance on leaders for decision-making. Leaders are expected to be decisive, their decisions are followed without question; leaders are consulted for more routine decisions than in low PDI countries.
- Lower expectations of non-leaders. Non-leaders are discouraged from expressing opinions or making decisions (er, “the thinking is done”). They are subordinates in every sense of the word.
- Restrictions on how subordinates are permitted to express their needs. In the highest PDI cultures, this is restricted to very indirect “hints,” which within the context of the culture are generally understood by leaders as a way for the leader to retain authority but save face. However, this structure relies heavily on leaders’ ability and willingness to listen and respond to these hints.
- Fear of backlash. In very high PDI countries, subordinates were sometimes physically struck when they irritated their leaders or were too direct. Fear and intimidation clearly impacted how willing subordinates were to speak up.
- Strong reliance on rules & plans. These cultures discourage deviation from accepted procedures, even when circumstances clearly dictate that normal procedures will be ineffective.
Conversely, low PDI cultures are generally the opposite of the above:
- Subordinate or employee-focused culture. Leaders tend to be apologetic about being leaders and ultra-sensitive to subordinates. This is the basis for the concept of “servant leadership.” (Or as Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker: “With great power comes great responsibility.”)
- Shared responsibility for communication. In a low PDI culture, the speaker is expected to ensure understanding. The receiver of the message is also expected to listen attentively. In a high PDI culture, only leaders are considered responsible for the receiving of the message. The speaker’s input is not considered necessary anyway.
- Equality culture. Subordinates are valued as having unique roles or expertise that give them insight and make their input critical. Their opinions are expected and weighed based on merit; there is a free exchange of ideas regardless of level. Speaking up, even in disagreement with a superior may be rewarded in these cultures, even if done tactlessly or aggressively.
- High innovation and creativity. These cultures are very willing to abandon established procedures and brainstorm new ideas when circumstances dictate. They tend to be flexible and innovative.
Just to give you a taste, here’s how a few countries stacked up on PDI. High PDI countries (with strong respect for authority):
- South Korea
Low PDI countries (note the commonality created by language):
- New Zealand
- South Africa
- United States
So, based on these parameters, is Mormonism a high-PDI culture or a low-PDI culture or somewhere in between? Does it vary by region or is it common across the entire religion, preserved in the language and customs and doctrines? How much does it vary from person to person? What are the boundaries of respect for authority in Mormon culture (what would even the staunchest Saint refuse to do)?
Based on the above, I would have a hard time considering most Mormon culture to be high PDI (as I might have expected), yet there are some elements of both high and low PDI. To some extent, this could be due to the fact that the concept of hierarchy is mixed:
- Quorum Leadership. There is an “oligarchy” in that we consider all the apostles to be “prophets” and their personalities differ greatly. Yet all are viewed as being on the same “level.” Some of them are high PDI individuals; others are low PDI.
- Christ as the Head. Ultimately, we consider Christ to be at the head of the church, and since our notion of Christ is something personal (everyone can have a relationship with their Savior), we have a “bat phone” to the man at the top. That’s usually a low PDI indicator. The fact that Christ is not physically on the earth further reduces PDI. Everyone’s notion of Christ has somewhat equal creedence so long as it is not directly and clearly contradicted by doctrine.
- Lay Clergy. Positions are temporary, and we are all volunteers. No one is being paid or truly promoted, and anyone could be called to serve in any capacity at any time. There are instances of “unrighteous dominion” (high PDI), but there are also many committees and quorums making decisions at the lowest level possible (low PDI). Again, there’s a lot of variation based on individuals in leadership having a high or low PDI personally.
In general, I would say that the church is mixed, with both high and low PDI elements, and that it varies more from individual to individual (meaning there is not necessarily a predominant culture). What do you think?