Understanding and Mitigating Authority Bias in Business and Beyond

Introduction

In today's complex world, it's common to seek guidance and expertise from trusted sources to make sound decisions. However, our reliance on individuals or systems perceived as possessing authority or knowledge can lead to authority bias. While this bias can sometimes be helpful, it can also result in less-than-optimal outcomes. It's crucial to understand the origins and implications of authority bias to navigate decision-making processes in a world where information and influence come from multiple sources, including human experts and advanced AI systems. In this exploration, we delve into the manifestations of authority bias in various settings and share strategies to mitigate its impact. Additionally, we examine the emerging phenomenon of automation bias, where trust and authority extend to intelligent machines and autonomous systems, offering insight into the evolving landscape of decision-making in the digital age.

Some system of authority is a necessity of social life; the individual is expected not to defy or ignore the commands of others unless they live in absolute isolation (Milgram, 1963; Milgram, 1973). Over the centuries, this simple notion remained intact, while the authority figures differed; tribe leaders, presidents, army commanders, doctors, professors, financial advisors, parents, influencers, robots, search engines and even artificial intelligence (AI) systems have enjoyed the power to manipulate people's attitudes and actions. The increasing specialisation intensifies the deferral to experts even in the most mundane habits of daily routine (Pierson, 1994). One of the most famous and essential analyses of the authority of experts is Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy (Stehr, 1992). Weber begins his classification of authority with the question of why people obey. He states that the answer lies in the attributed (by recipients) legitimacy of the source that gives orders/directives. According to Weber (2017), authority – which differs from habit by being rational in terms of purpose – is the possibility of a particular group of individuals to comply with orders of a specific source, and this compliance/obedience is a voluntary action because coercive authority is limited only to the slavery. Brodeur (2004) argues that specific competence and knowledge are needed to have a recognised authority in a field. Kurz-Milcke (2004) similarly regards experts as having authority because of their knowledge, skills, and professional competence. Cialdini and Rhoads (2001) also consider legitimate authorities, who derive their influence from education, talent or experience, as instrumental sources, as people turn to their authorities for information and guidance.

Consequently, we train our descendants to obey the proper authority and make them adopt the notion that submission and loyalty to the legitimate rule are essential (Cialdini, 2007); however, whether it is always advantageous to comply with the authority and, if so, when is still being debated because blind submission and loyalty to authorities may have some unwarranted consequences like authority bias.