Ethics and Industrial Relations

Part I
Three concepts presented by Palmer (2012) that can be used to help explain the type of culture that contributed to the Columbia disaster are: 1) general endorsement of wrongdoing (Palmer, 2012, p. 69); 2) the stipulation of extenuating circumstances (Palmer, 2012, p. 72); and 3) denial of responsibility (Palmer, 2012, p. 73). In the Columbia disaster, the shuttle had been shedding foam which damaged the craft and led to its breaking apart. Engineers were aware of the issue and expressed concern to their superiors; however, the superiors let it be known that they believed the project to be in a good state overall—so the engineers accepted the opinion of the superiors and did nothing to prevent the launch. It was an example of collective rationalization and self-censorship with engineers trusting that their superiors knew what was best. Instead of blowing the whistle on the program, the concerned engineers kept quiet. The culture at NASA was such that there was an acceptance of the general endorsement of wrongdoing, the assumption that what was wrong could actually be right, and a basic denial of responsibility.
The first concept, the general endorsement of wrongdoing, could be defined as an overall acceptance within the culture of a willingness to look the other way whenever a problem occurred. If no one is raising an alarm of an issue then it must be that the issue is not really an issue at all. This type of thinking is akin to burying one’s head in the sand: it creates a culture of permissiveness that is ruinous because it allows wrongdoing to proliferate. In the case of the Columbia disaster, the tragedy could have been prevented had a handful of people been willing to buck the trend—but the culture of general endorsement of wrongdoing had already been put in place and as a result no one was willing to lift his head out of the sand to really prevent the mission from proceeding onward.
The second concept, the stipulation of extenuating circumstances, could be defined as the assumption that even if something is wrong if the higher-ups are unwilling to address it then there must be good reason for it so perhaps what seems wrong to the lower-level workers is actually okay. It is a type of self-censorship based on the assumption that the superiors know best so lower-level workers should just be quiet about problems that the superiors do not want to be bothered by. After all, there are targets to meet and that is what matters most—not the safety of all involved. In the Columbia disaster case, the engineers who knew better than to let the mission proceed with the ship’s faulty mechanicals should have been willing to step in or intervene all the way to the very top—but the culture at NASA did not permit this type of intervention. If the superiors did not respond as the engineers would have preferred, then the superiors must have had good reason—this was the thinking of the crew.
The third concept, the denial of responsibility, could be defined as what happens when workers feel that a situation is out of their hands and there is nothing they can do to address it; therefore, they are not responsible for what happens. This was certainly the case in the Columbia disaster. The engineers knew something was wrong and even warned their superiors—but the superiors were not sufficiently alarmed to ground the mission. The engineers felt that the decision was ultimately out of their hands and even though they knew it was a disaster waiting to happen they assumed a denial of responsibility: it was not their call to make in the chain of command. This type of culture is one that invites a catastrophe, and the Columbia disaster is a perfect illustration of that point.
Part II
Three ways in which an HR professional might help create a culture that more effectively promotes ethical decision making would be to: 1) invite openness; 2) reward responsibility and accountability; and 3) support the right of dissenting voices to be heard no matter how high or low on the totem pole they are. Ethical decision making depends upon a number of criteria being met. First, it requires that all information available is accessible by those tasked with making decisions. That means, in order for a leader to make the right decision, all the relevant data has to be provided. If there are lower level workers who are withholding information because of fear of retaliation or of being taken to task for speaking out of turn, the leader will not be able to make an effective decision. When it comes to ethical decision-making, the leader has to be able to see what others are seeing and understand what others are understanding—and if the culture in the workplace does not permit of this transaction, there can be no real ethical decision making.
Second, ethical decision making depends upon having a sense of right and wrong. A leader has to be mindful of what it means to be accountable and responsible—and that means adhering to a certain moral line or code. Oftentimes an organization will define a code of ethics or workplace standard that it wants its workers to abide by. The leader has to align his actions to this code or standard and value it is the right line by which he should base decisions. Conforming to a right way of acting and thinking is essential for a leader. However, if the culture itself is not supportive of right thinking and does not promote a right and moral standard of action, the leader is unlikely to adhere to any legitimate standard. The best example of this dangerous type of culture was at Enron, where the leaders rewarded dubious behavior that brought quick profits and silenced dissenters who disapproved of the methods being used because they were highly unethical. A workplace has to have a culture that values ethical actions so that its leaders can be held accountable and the leaders in turn can make decisions that flow from this value-orientation.
Third, the organization has to facilitate openness. Leaders have to be respectful of all voices within the organization and welcome everyone’s opinion as this is the only way that they can actually have a sense of what is happening at all levels. Oftentimes it happens that leaders are far removed from the front lines of the operation. An HR manager can help to improve an organization’s culture by promoting the concept of openness and hosting meetings in which all participants are encouraged to provide their two cents without fear of reprisal or of being shamed. Everyone should be thanked for his or her participation because by contributing to all discussions, everyone plays a part in keeping leaders informed about what is happening. Whenever an employee takes responsibility to bring an issue up at the top, that employee should be rewarded for being responsible and for facilitating accountability. The HR manager could also implement a whistleblower hotline for individuals who are still fearful and wish to remain anonymous when delivering news that they fear might be upsetting. The whistleblower hotline could be used as a tool to facilitate a culture of transparency in the workplace, which would further promote the concepts of openness, accountability, and respect for dissenting voices. By providing workers with every available means to feel that their opinions are welcome, HR can create a culture of responsibility and ethical decision making.
References
Palmer, D. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing. UK: Oxford University Press.