A culture of entitlement

Half of 105 participants were asked to write about a past experience in which they had legitimately been given a role of high or low power. The others were asked to write about an experience of high or low power where they did not feel their power (or lack of it) was legitimate. All of the volunteers were then asked to rate how immoral it would be for someone to take an abandoned bicycle rather than report the bicycle to the police. They were also asked, if they were in real need of a bicycle, how likely they would be to take it them­selves and not report it.

The "powerful" who had been primed to believe they were entitled to their pow­er readily engaged in acts of moral hypocri­sy. They assigned a value of 5.1 to others en­gaging in the theft of the bicycle while rating the action at 6.9 if they were to do it themselves. Among participants in all of the low-power states, morally hypocritical behaviour inverted itself, as it had in the case of tax fraud. "Legitimate" low-power individuals assigned others a score of 5.1 if they stole a bicycle and gave themselves a 4.3. Those primed to feel that their lack of power was illegitimate behaved similarly, assigning values of 4.7 and 4.4 respectively.

However, an intriguing characteristic emerged among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals – to be harsh on themselves and less harsh on others – but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galin­sky call this reversal "hypocrisy".

They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word "privi­lege" translates as "private law". If Dr Lam­mers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen. They genuinely believe it.

By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for be­ing led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha females). The alternative, though cleaner, is leadership by wimps.

(“The Economist”, January 23^rd 2010, pages 75-76)

Exercise 8. Comprehension check. Answer the following questions:

1. When were low-power individuals actually easier on others and harsher on themselves during the experiment?

2. Do powerful people feel entitled to abuse the system?

3. What was the point of the third set of experiments?

4. What was intriguing about participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions?

5. What powerful people genuinely believe, according to Dr Lam­mers and Dr Galinsky’s research?

6. When might hypocrisy be a signal of submissiveness?

7. What is the alternative to the society led by alpha males and females?

Vocabulary

Exercise 9. Study the report on the problems of corruption again (Exercise 7) and match the words and phrases with their definitions:

1. a smoke screen	to steal something and escape
2. by contrast	artificial fog helping to hide something
3. to get away with something	vice versa
4. an elevated position	not paying taxes probably by means of some cunning schemes
5. to be harsh on somebody	sign of regret
6. a tax dodging	high status
7. a sign of contrition	to be strict to somebody

Exercise 10. Study the report on the problem of corruption again (Exercise 7) and find the adequate English equivalents of the following words:

1) поразительный, 2) соответственно, 3) проступок (нарушение), 4) злоупотреблять, 5) изобретать (придумывать), 6) мягкий (снисходительный), 7) применять к чему-либо, 8) перевернутый (обратный), 9) слабак, 10) иметь право, быть уполномоченным, 11) лицемерие, 12) нарушать налоговое законадательство.

Exercise 11. Discuss the difference between the following words, think of possible collocations: to warrant, to justify.

Listening

Exercise 12. Pre-listening discussion: What corporate crimes do you know? What are the reasons for these crimes?

Exercise 13. Listen to the report “Corporate crime is on the rise” and give your answers to the following questions (“The Economist” November 21^st 2009):

1. Why is this report most thorough and most worrying at the same time?

2. What are the three most common forms of corporate crime?

3. What does the rise of fraud stem from? What can be done to stamp it out?

4. What kind of doubts does the survey raise?

Exercise 14. Listen to the report again and number the statements below in the order they appear in the report.

· A growing number of executives, it seems, are discovering that the only way that they can hit their performance tar­gets is to break the law.

· The recession has taken its toll on morals as well as profits.

· Companies have been reducing the number of people employed to monitor workers at a time when employees are more tempted to break the rules because their living stan­dards are eroding and their jobs are looking shakier.

· The incidence was particularly high in devel­oping countries, notably Russia.

· PWC argues that senior managers should play a more active role in combating the problem.

Exercise 15. Study the script (p.122) and find the English equivalents for the following phrases: 1) нарушать закон, 2) сделать свое дело (нанести урон), 3) испытывать искушение, 4) развивающиеся страны, 5) бороться с проблемой, 6) черная бухгалтерия, 7) руководитель среднего звена, 8) стимул, 9) резкое повышение, 10) печальные последствия.

Exercise 16. Translate the following sentences into English using the target vocabulary (Exercises 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15):

1. Адвокат был строг с посетителем, он выслушал его историю, осудил его сомнительную, с точки зрения нравственности, деятельность и посоветовал избегать связей на стороне.

2. Новый член нашего клуба оказался слабаком и заслуживает только презрения.

3. Результаты расследования были поразительными – более 30% сотрудников фирмы регулярно завышали свои командировочные расходы.

4. Моральная неустойчивость является причиной большинства проступков и злоупотребления своим высоким положением.

5. Допустимо ли нарушать закон в борьбе с этой проблемой?

Exercise 17. Paraphrase the following sentences using the target vocabulary (Exercises 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15):

1. Was it typical of you to find excuses for your ex-wife when she was late for work?

2. He was carried away with the idea of a possible enormous income and his own profit that he can get concluding this contract.

3. We did not see any signs of regret on his face for not paying taxes.

Speaking

Exercise 18. Work in groups of three. Make a list of famous high-power personalities suspected in or officially found guilty of breaking laws and corruption. Make use of your target vocabulary (Exercises 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15). Share your opinions with other students.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-23