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...…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.…