By Brad J. Castle, Ph.D., Behavioral Sciences, Columbia Southern University and College of Doctoral Studies, Grand Canyon University

The concept of the Baboon Syndrome arose during my doctoral dissertation study related to police disciplinary actions (Castle, 2018).  Although I interviewed officers from all across the United States, the indications of this type of behavior were immense.  In talking to officers since then, all the officers I talked with recognize this typical -and unfortunately common- behavior.  As a college professor, I have had the opportunity to talk with many young people who have worked in fast food establishments and other organizations and they too recognize these behaviors in their organizational leadership.  I have personally experienced this and talked to many others who have also experienced this sort of behavior in many different areas of endeavor.  Fundamentally, there is a space beyond a mere bully, or the Machiavellian personality which is where the baboonish leader often shows his or her true qualities in their unrestrained form.  Much like a bully, the baboonish personality seems to arguably be a natural human characteristic which affect some people to a much greater degree than others.  In fact, it could be argued that a baboonish person is much a combination of the characteristics of the bully and the Machiavellian, with an extra bit of primal rage thrown in while often lacking the subtlety of the Machiavellian persona.

 What Exactly is the Baboon Syndrome?

In general, the concept of the Baboon Syndrome arose during my dissertation research into aspects of the disciplinary processes in police organizations.  Generally, disciplinary processes fall into three categories.  First, we find Legitimate processes described in the employee handbook and followed by administrators.  Next, we find Illegitimate processes where administrators stray outside the written policy, or take shortcuts.  For instance, they may unreasonably apply overly harsh penalties for relatively minor infractions, or even ignore clear violations of policy depending on who the offender might be. Finally, we experience the Baboon-like processes where administrators are far from the position of a reasonable written policy to the point that their actions are clearly unreasonable, harmful, have negative effects on the organization, and are never intended to correct a behavior but only to harm the subject employee (Castle et al., 2022).

The Research

I interviewed a number of current or former officers from all around the United States in reference to their experiences of being involved in a disciplinary process event.  The key to understand this is that more often than not, the officers believed that they did not violate a rule or policy, or that they may have received an unreasonably harsh punishment for seemingly minor infractions (or they observed this happen to others) (Castle, 2018).  These were not young officers still learning the ropes.  The study included officers with 8 to 34 years of police service between the ages of 33 and 66 years of age.  Two of the officers had been police chiefs or acting chiefs. The question became why would administrative officers take this abrasive and organizationally harmful posture against one of their officers.

During my research, I ran across the work of Dr. Robert Sapolsky of Harvard University.  Sapolsky had been doing research on stress responses in baboons in Africa for years.  I found a National Geographic documentary on YouTube titled Stress: Portrait of a Killer (interface, 2008).  I ordered the DVD, but Sapolsky’s work is featured between 3:10 and 11:40 (among other spots later) of the online video.  In the portion of the documentary where Sapolsky is initially featured, he explains that societies of baboons are ideal models of westernized human society.  Most commonly a patriarchal hierarchy exists within baboon troops.  Further, that baboons seem to spend much of their time reinforcing their status over subordinates within the hierarchy.  Essentially, the old saying that stuff rolls downhill is true for baboons also.

Later on, in the same documentary (interface, 2008), the Whitehall study is introduced (at 50:45).  The Whitehall study was conducted in the UK and focused on British civil service workers who operate in a tiered, hierarchical structure similar to that of our military.  The findings of the Whitehall study (Marmot, 2003) confirmed the similarity of primates in research such as that of Sapolsky’s baboons with humans in similar organizational structures.

Certainly, this was nothing new in the realms of human psychology.  Henry I of England enacted the Charter of Liberties in 1100.  Henry II the Constitutions of Clarendon and later in 1166 the Assize of Clarendon.  All of these historical documents led to the Charter of Liberties, and later the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John of England (Castle, 2018).  The purpose of these historical documents was in essence the concession of the English monarchy to almost certain rebellion of his nobles because of their interpretation of wrongdoing by their monarchs.  The Magna Carta contained a legal process by which the barons were able to inflict penalties against the king for perceived overreaching of his authority, and even a suspension of royal power should he not abide by restrictions within the agreement (Castle, 2018).

Another popular point in history is the letter written to Bishop Creighton by Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton in 1887.  Within the pages of this letter Lord Acton challenged the traditional view of writing history in only favorable fashion for notable men.  Within these pages, is a very popular quotation:

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it (Dalberg-Acton,1887).

This line by Lord Acton suggests that the availability of power and control from a high position within a hierarchy is often associated with a tendency to do as one pleases rather than do what would be considered the right thing.  This shapes the argument that a person with ultimate power and authority combined with little fear of reprisal though lack of oversight, tends to encourage or at least permit improper liberties against subordinates.  Certainly, there are many more recent examples which emboldens the idea that such situational abuse of subordinates by one with immense power and control is essentially basic human nature.

In the early 2000s, news broke of a situation that had occurred within Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.  Dr. Philip Zimbardo was engaged as an expert witness for one of the accused military prison guards.  In his book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Zimbardo recounts events not only of the Abu Ghraib Prison, but also of his infamous now well-known study the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) which took place in 1971 (Zimbardo, 2007).  Zimbardo indicated that when he was approached to work on behalf of one of the prison guards and was provided evidentiary photographs, he suddenly realized that he had seen the same behaviors before during the SPE.  Zimbardo explained that the characterization of ‘a few bad apples’ was less accurate than the concept of a bad barrel which overwhelmed a few apples resulting in their bad behaviors.  Essentially, he reasoned, in certain situations even good people are capable of bad behaviors.  Zimbardo and Acton both reached the same conclusion “-ultimate, unrestrained power and authority, combined with little or no constructive or effective oversight creates a situation that is ripe for abuse” (Castle, 2018, p. 302).

One participant from the original study commented on this very aspect of the issue regarding police administrators:

…and don’t take me wrong because I’ve met excellent chiefs and sheriffs that were not in this case …but for some reason you get in that job [heavy sigh] …you tend to be…become a bully. And whether you started out as a bully or you end up as a bully you tend to be a bully at some level. And it’s so easy to be a bully to citizens that you tend to start being a bully even to your fellow officers. I think you’re in a position where nobody can question you…you know. Even when the mayor and council is supposed to they don’t because they’re scared of you… (Castle, 2018, p. 303).

This description by this 30+ year police officer describes the very same modern-day behaviors and tendencies as did Acton in 1887 and Zimbardo in 1971 and 2007.  As my initial study pointed out, within police organizations, administrators who lean toward baboon processes tend to disguise their behaviors as being legitimately sanctioned behaviors as part of the bureaucratic process against a rogue subordinate officer (Castle et al., 2019).

Discussion

Coming away from this research I was left with several consistent, and provable points. First, these negative behaviors arise typically within a hierarchy where there exists power and control over subordinates.  This hierarchical position offers the dominant member protection without fear of retaliation or consternation (Castle et al., 2020).  Further, and very importantly, is that this baboonish behavior, goes beyond classically recognized Machiavellianism (Castle, et al., 2020).  Whereas Machiavellianism suggests the willingness of one to cross ethical (and sometimes legal) boundaries to position current or future benefit to him or herself (or causes they support) in a calculated way, baboonism steps beyond even that boundary.  People who tend to fall into baboonish behaviors tend to have some inner need for the control of others.  At times, this can present in raw, primal aggressions.  For instance, when asked a clarifying question regarding instructions or orders, the Machiavellian administrator might respond to the subordinate in a helpful and friendly manner because doing so might be useful to them in the future.  The baboon administrator, however, is more likely to view the question as a challenge to their authority and respond by immediately jumping up from a seated position and yelling threats into the subordinate’s face from mere inches away.

In retrospect, I have encountered baboonish leaders throughout my life.  In high school, I recall seeing a teacher walk into the room and observe a spitball being thrown.  Instead of simply taking the offending student to the office, as the student reached the doorway the teacher pushed the student so violently that he was thrown across the hallway into a row of lockers.  The teacher then forcibly held the student in place against the lockers and yelled at him prior to taking him to the office.

I remember working at a wholesale/retail greenhouse when I and the retail cashier were the only employees on site that day.  I was tasked with a job and was told it would take two people to do it.  Long story short, the way I was instructed to do this was very cumbersome, and would take the cashier away from his job of minding the retail portion of the complex during business hours to help me complete the tasks once I had them set up.  However, I found a piece of scrap metal and in about 10 minutes had fashioned it in a way that I was able to hold both pieces of a screwed fitting from inside by myself as I assembled the parts required.  When the owner of the greenhouse returned and saw me completing the job in a different way than he had instructed, he became very angry.  As I recall, he spent maybe 15 minutes or more yelling at me for not following directions.  Further, he told me there was no other way to complete the task other than how he had originally directed.  Clearly, he was incorrect in his opinion.  But the interesting aspect of this (like the high school teacher above), was the degree, time, and effort he took to display his authority over a subordinate.

There have certainly been other examples.  In recent years I have been yelled at by convenience store clerks because my mask was not fitted correctly, or I moved past the markings on the floor which indicated how close I was allowed to be to other customers.  In one case, a maintenance person at one college yelled at me in the presence of a departmental secretary for not wearing a mask when only the three of us were present.  It is certainly possible that these people felt they were justified or even perhaps obligated to say something to me.  However, the manner in which they voiced their opinions in the given situations spoke much louder than their words.

In recent years, I have had the opportunity to talk with many college students.  Some students as young as 15 years of age through Ohio’s College Credit Plus program where college professors teach semester long college classes dedicated to high school students in their local high schools.  As I teach these psychology classes, my prior research occasionally arises.  I was initially stunned to learn that most of my students had already at a young age experienced baboon-like behaviors in their workplaces.  Most of these student’s experiences have occurred in the fast-food industry.  But interestingly, the phenomenon seems to be prevalent irrespective of the specific fast-food chain in which the students had worked.

In these encounters, the students would describe what boils down to baboonish behavior of targeting certain team members for increased scrutiny and disciplinary action, while protecting other team members who were personal friends of the supervisor in charge.  My students have described baboon leaders who frequently raised their voices and yelled at subordinates. Who assigned their personal duties to subordinate workers.  Who took privileges that were organizationally forbidden by policy.  Who were quick to issue written warnings and other formal disciplinary processes to enforce their authority over subordinate workers.  That a teenager in today’s society would so quickly act out with such historically similar behaviors when placed in a position of authority is sobering.  It suggests that this characteristic is indeed a basic human behavior.

Whenever one considers authoritarian type leaders who tend to be baboonish, it is common to see the traits openly and often flagrantly expressed.  Often legitimate questions are viewed as being a challenge to authority.  Their position often dictates that they fear no other person within the organization.  This stands in contrast to the Machiavellian as this type person will not commonly be at the top rank of an organization.  Instead, the Machiavellian is commonly locked in a struggle to rise to the top and may view others only as a means to get there.  As a result, the Machiavellian tends to be much more opportunistic and discrete.

Bullying has met with increased public criticism in recent years.  Organizations create rules and states enact laws to combat this behavior.  However, acts of bullying never cease.  As new generations become aware of social interaction and are taught the rules of society, there are still newly emerging bullies among the ranks.  One simply needs to ask the question why with all the public outcry against bullying behaviors, does it still exist and why it continues to emerge in younger generations -unless of course it is in fact a basic human behavior.  Of course, the historical evidence suggests that bullying behaviors are in fact basic human behaviors to some extent.

 

Figure 1 suggests a concept I first began to consider many, many years ago.  I realized that if we wished to understand international politics, we needed to understand basic human behavior.  Simply, if we want to know what a nation state (a country like the USA, Germany, Japan, Russia, or China, etc.) would do in a given situation, we simply needed to equate the problem in a manner that a four-year-old would be able to understand it -and then ask a four-year-old what their reaction would be.  For instance, we might ask, “Bobby, what if the neighbor kid snuck into your yard last night and took over your sandbox and said it was his now.  What do you think about that, and what would you do?”  We might be surprised how the reactions of the child would solidly forecast the actions of a nation state in such a similar situation.

To better describe the Socialization Curve concept shown in Figure 1, we need only look at what we innately know to be true.  We are born without any power or control over those around us.  We have no social grace.  We do not say please, thank you, or wait our turn.  But we learn social skills and grace and how to be nice to others as we age.  Then, as we age, some of us gain wealth which tends to improve our position within the social hierarchy.  At some point, those of us so inclined realize that wealth or position within a hierarchy can leverage power and control over others.  Once sufficient power and control are gained, there is often little need to engage in societal niceties for the benefit of others and their feelings.  This is why a four-year-old child can often accurately predict world events if the situations are posed within a child’s understanding.

Significant wealth and power might not be available to everyone, and most of us do not act on the world stage.  However, power alone -or even perceived power- over subordinates is sufficient to trigger baboon-like behaviors from those so inclined.  We see these behaviors active in many organizations today (Boe, 2004).  We see similar tendencies in recently promoted co-workers in fast food organizations, or guards in either a prison study or real prison.  We see those in positions of access and restricted control seemingly at times almost giddy that they can deny a request or make a requirement of others within the organization.  This suggests their expert power within the organization (Boe, 2004).  Long ago when I first began to work as a police officer in small towns, I was given sound advice -never get on the bad side of the clerk. Certainly, the clerks do not hold the legitimate power of the mayor or council members, but they certainly do hold coercive power and immense influence with others who hold power otherwise (Boe, 2004).

Conclusion

Therefore, no matter where we go or what we do, we are often faced with aspects of power and control.  Sometimes the power and control are legitimately authorized and utilized -like a speeding ticket for 20 mph over the posted limit.  But, at other times it is not. An example might be the police trainer who once told a class of recruits in full uniform who were on their backs in a muddy field during a rain storm holding their arms and legs in the air: “I do not feel sorry for you!  When I joined the police force someone did this to me, so now I am going to do it to you!” Of course, we often refer to this type of behavior as bullying, and it is.  But the basic behaviors behind the desire to control and subject others to one’s will I might suggest is more properly considered as baboonish.

When considering all of the historical aspects and over abundance of examples in today’s society, it would be very difficult to define the Baboon Syndrome narrowly. While bullying and Machiavellian behaviors are commonly seen in relation to, and in concert with baboon-like behaviors, the aspect that baboonish leaders exhibit rapid aggression when they perceive a subordinate may be challenging their authority is unique.  For this reason, I would define the Baboon Syndrome as a tendency for one of higher authority or relative standing to take actions against one of lesser authority often by utilization of an organizational disciplinary policy, or personal position of relative power, to enforce or exhibit their higher rank or dominance within an organizational or social hierarchical structure.

FEEDBACK TO SHARE? E-mail us at: editor@calibrepress.com

References

Boe, G. P. (2004). Organizational power, politics, and influence: Get savvy and succeed. AMT Events, 21(3), 140–141.

Castle, B. J. (2018). A grounded theory inquiry of the lived experiences of police officers
going through a disciplinary process (Publication No. 10827283) [Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database

Castle, B. J., Broomé, R. E., & Russell, E. J. (2019). Police administration and ineffective
civilian oversight: A grounded theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167819854605

Castle, B.J., Russell, E.J., & Broome, R.E. (2020). The nature of disciplinary processes in police
organizations: The disciplinary continuum. IPSA Journal, Fifth Edition. pp. 68-106.

Castle, B. J., Russell, E. J., & Broomé, R. E. (2022). Stressors related to administrative
discipline of police officers: A grounded theory study. IPSA Journal, Seventh Edition.
pp. 5-42.

Dalberg-Acton, J. (1887), John Emerich Edward Dalberg, Lord Acton, Acton-Creighton correspondence [1887]. The Online Library of Liberty.  http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/acton-acton-creighton-correspondence?q=acton#Acton_PowerCorrupts1524_33

interface. (2011, October 16). Stress: Portrait of a killer [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYG0ZuTv5rs&t=529s

Marmot, M. G. (2003). Understanding social inequalities in health. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46(3), S9-S23. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Lucifer effect. Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Bredar, J. (Senior Executive Producer), Goldman, L. (Senior Producer), & Heminway, J. (Director/Writer). (2008). Stress: Portrait of a killer [DVD]. NGHT Inc., National Geographic Television, Stanford University.

About the Author

Brad Castle, Ph.D., is a police patrol veteran, holding instructor ratings for Taser and Radar/Lidar. In addition to degrees in Criminal Justice, and Public Safety Administration. Dr. Castle holds a master’s degree in Public Administration with emphasis on government and policy, and a doctorate in Psychology with emphasis in industrial/organizational psychology. Dr. Castle currently teaches psychology, works as a doctoral committee chair, and also works as an investigator and expert witness in various court cases. Dr. Castle’s research interests include the effects of organizational behavior on employees, leadership effectiveness, employee performance among others –particularly involving emergency service organizations.