Willful Blindness: We can run, but we can’t hide

The Influence of the Crowd

When asked whether they perceive themselves as safety advocates, most managers would probably say they do. I recall working alongside managers who genuinely cared about establishing a respectful and caring workplace, making sure that health and safety were a top priority. But I also remember times when these same managers took a backseat to management politics or others’ desires when it was more difficult to challenge the status quo, even though at the expense of ignoring unsafe and unethical practices. Does this necessarily mean that these managers and leaders are adversaries or antiheroes? Definitely not! But there is much more to say about this and similar scenarios.

We live and operate within the fabric of groups, communities, organizations, etc. This collective stage increases our tendency to rely on others when an action is needed. For example, how often have you experienced or heard of cases when a person gets attacked on the street while countless bystanders stood watching and not acting. If we were to ask anyone of them, the response would probably be: “I am sure someone else has called 911.”

In 1968, social physiologists John M. Darley and Bibb Latané conducted a series of experiments known as the “Smoky Room Experiment.” They investigated a phenomenon known as “diffusion of responsibility.” In the first experiment, the subjects were asked to sit in a room one at a time and fill out a survey form. Then, the supervisors introduced harmless smoke through the vents. The results showed that two-thirds of the subjects reported the smoke to the supervisors within six minutes. In the second experiment, the supervisors asked another group of subjects to gather in the room and fill out the survey forms under similar conditions. Contrary to the first experiment, the results showed that only 10 % of the subjects reported the smoke. Darley and Latané hypothesized that responsibility weighs heavier on individuals when alone than when they are part of a group. In addition, when they are part of a group, individuals prefer to adhere to the group’s collective decision and tend not to act contradictory to the prevailing opinion. Thus, they wait for others to act.

To summarize, the Smoky Room Experiment, though not 100% conclusive, teaches us that in certain situations, we should trust our instincts, take the driver’s seat, and act bravely rather than waiting for others to act.

Obedience to Authority

On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 passenger jets (KLM and Pan Am) collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport on Tenerife Island, killing 583 people in what is considered to be the deadliest accident in aviation history. So, what exactly happened, and how does this incident relate to our topic? As we all know, most accidents occur due to a combination of several factors, none of which, in isolation, would cause these accidents. However, there are times when human behavior, once assumed to be the final safeguard in a complex system, becomes an apparent culprit. While it is not the intention of this article to elaborate or investigate what led to the Tenerife accident – as many factors lined up perfectly leading to this disaster – the behavior of the pilots in the KLM plane is worth highlighting. In short, the KLM plane took off from the single runway without proper clearance and under extremely low visibility, while the PAN AM plane was still taxing on the same runway. The social influence of the KLM’s captain (who was a renowned pilot) on the other pilots prevented them from overturning the captain’s decision and abandoning the takeoff. They knew it was wrong, yet they were blind to the situation and acted helpless until it was too late.

“I say: “run!”; you say: “how far?” – I say: “jump?”; you say: “how high?”
Obedience to authority – which is different from respect to authority – is a dangerous phenomenon that can cause disasters. In the early 60s, Dr. Stanley Milgram, a psychologist from Yale University, investigated the concept of obedience to authority and its extremes on human behavior in a series of experiments. He found that this phenomenon can push people to their behavioral and moral limits to obey instructions and satisfy their superiors, even involuntarily.

The Profound Power of Sweet-Talk

Sweet-talk is a potent and rewarding tool to motivate people and appreciate their value and effort. There is no harm in being excessively praised by your boss. However, sweet-talk can sometimes conceal hidden intentions to pass a specific plan. Consider the following scenario:

Context:

• You are a young scientist working at TIKAS, a well-established and renowned company specializing in researching and developing food preservative agents.
• You are highly respected and well-known to the top of the organizational chain, including the CEO. You are a rising star and have a promising future at TIKAS. In two years, you are expected to take the role of Vice President of operations.
• You believe that your future success hinges on your career development and continuity at TIKAS.
• The employees highly regard you; they trust you, listen to you, and are willing to follow any instruction you ask them to perform.
• Your current financial situation is moderate, but, Oh God, the future is promising @ TIKAS.

Scenario

• One day, the company COO called for an urgent meeting at his residence. Usually, you don’t receive invites to such high-profile meetings.
• Surprisingly, you learned that the CFO was the only other guest upon arrival.
• Both informed you that it was imperative to prematurely announce the long-awaited revolutionary Agent “E4” release due to the upcoming end-of-year financial results.
• The CFO and COO also told you to announce the agent in a news conference publicly.
• The COO emphasized that the instruction had come from the highest authority within the organization and was crucial to implement.
• Even worse, the CFO informed you that the CEO had cherry-picked you into doing this task because he highly regards and trusts you.

Action & Consequence

• While the company has been running several successful tests on the agent, results were inconclusive, and it was still unclear to you how the agent will affect human health in the long run.
• You are confident that in the worst-case scenario, any conclusive effects (if any) would not surface before 25-30 years, probably after you are long gone/retired. However, you are not sure what effect the agent will have on human health.
• If you don’t take on the task, you are almost certain of the detrimental consequence. You will be subject to constructive dismissal.
• Top management seems adamant about taking this route, and they seem to have taken the final decision; no room for any other proposition or ideas.
• Good news: some ideas came to your mind that will allow you to take on this task without much exposure, i.e., push others to the front and lead from behind. Clean & Sweet.

Considering the above unpleasant situation, what would you do? Obey, walk away, or do something else? Sweet-talk can profoundly affect the decision of some people facing similar problems. It can simply render them insensitive to the criticality of the consequence of their action and shift their focus to the bright side of things. For example, the perception of diffusion of responsibility, exaggerated self-importance, hope of protection, and belief that the reward outweighs risks can dilute fear and worry. However, we need to keep in mind that whoever got selected to undertake the daunting task at TIKAS has been cherry-picked to fit in within the map of the organization’s reality, and others weeded out because they are hard to convince.

Fear

We live and fear a lot of things. According to science, humans are born with only two fears: Fear of falling and loud noises. All other fears are gained through learning and experience. Irrespective of how fear controls people’s lives, it inhibits their actions and contributes to willful blindness. For example, employees might not step forward to raise an issue or concern about their boss at work out of fear of losing their job. Or someone might decide not to talk about a severe safety violation they have witnessed in their company out of fear of being marked as a whistleblower and getting involved in a lengthy litigation process. Studies have shown that anxiety increases the tendency of people to accept less than the standard status quo as they overplay the consequence of change.

The Predicament of Organizational Structures

Large organizations’ piles and spans of structural layers increase these layers’ relational and communication complexities. As a result, managers tend to weed out, brush to the side, or disregard the ideas and opinions from the lower tiers that are non-confirming to the prevailing environment. Hence, knowing what could be going on at the trench level becomes complex and insignificant, proliferating shady business practices and engendering opportunities for blindness.

Priority Disorder

During my recent workshops, I presented the TIKAS scenario (above) to the audience and requested they formulate a solution in groups. Unsurprisingly, the responses were varied. However, for the groups that accepted the notion to proceed with the company’s plan, fear of loss and the enticement of reward were the top reasons behind their decision. Priorities, personal interests, or rewards can redefine people’s focus and increase their temptation to accept compromises, thus making them lose sight of what’s good or bad.

The Story of Boeing

The Boeing Company, once regarded as a pioneer in innovation, marvel engineering, great attention to detail, and efficacious and consistent safety culture, has been recently entrenched in serious troubles which run deep. Its latest issue with the Boeing 737 MAX, a state-of-the-art plane rushed into production to respond to the newly introduced competitor Airbus A320 NEO, is only the tip of the iceberg. The Boeing 737 MAX was grounded for many months due to two crashes that killed 346 passengers and cost Boeing billions of dollars. Disgracefully, the investigation has revealed damning and embarrassing revelations about the culture within the company.

Boeing executives put pressure on designing the new aircraft quickly and cheaply. This entailed installing bigger and more efficient engines without significant modifications to the existing 737 design. The idea was to introduce a new aircraft that requires minimal training for pilots and less operational cost for airline companies. Despite their knowledge, Boeing’s executives, including the CEO, willfully ignored critical safety concerns raised by engineers and test pilots related to MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), a system deemed essential to control the pitch of the new 737 MAX aircraft. Test pilots raised concerns that responding to MCAS can result in catastrophic events. However, the company discounted these concerns and instead removed all references of MCAS from training manuals thinking that doing so will deemphasize the MCAS as a new function and consequently will not have significant certification and training impacts. This path drew the trajectory to tragedy along the way at Boeing.

While Boeing maintained that safety is and has always been its top priority and that the 737 MAX design went through a six-year deliberate process, the investigation revealed an entirely different narrative. Boeing’s reputation was in tatters, and its operation was plagued by contrived ignorance, betrayal, corporate deception, broken regulatory processes, infamous leadership, and a corrosive and discordant work environment.

So, How to Avoid Willful Blindness?

Living, feeling, enduring the sour truth, and not talking about it is undoubtedly an unpleasant and agonizing practice. However, a healthy environment can make a big difference. For people to depart from their status quo and step forward and talk about issues evident to them, they need encouragement and a safe and supportive environment. According to Margaret Heffernan, creating such an environment where people are encouraged to report issues and feel safe and secure is the most prominent challenge leaders face. Heffernan adds that people who have dealt with minor problems without consequence have a better chance to step forward courageously, report, and deal with more complex issues. Runaway from the obvious doesn’t make us immune to its consequences. On the contrary, it’s only when we face it that we become insusceptible to it.

Therefore, we should help promote a healthy environment by fostering open dialogue, supporting and encouraging others to speak up and confront problems rather than turn a blind eye to relieve themselves from the consequence of solving them.

Finally, when asked about my opinion of the TIKAS scenario (presented above), I say to people: “Trust your intuition, be courageous, and drive by your values. Just then, you will find the right solution.”