‘One for All- and all for one’
When one joins a religious order, – a new life begins. A life of self-sacrifice, obedience, and the submission of one’s self to a higher calling. Such is the nature of choices when one makes that enormous decision to surrender all personal ambitions and a large part of oneself to an ideal. A calling to an alternative life, and, to religious ways.
Now consider what occurs when one becomes a leader in a company or holds a senior position within a corporate entity which of itself has its own hierarchical mantras and values. Collective responsibility, being a team player, and thought leader are just a few that spring to mind. Strange things happen to human beings when they occupy a seat at the table- they become part of a modern version of Knights of the Roundtable- One for all, and all for one. In that process something else happens- they surrender some part of their individuality. Their sense of self that submits itself to the well-being of the culture, the fellowship of collegiality that sits around that table. Organisation norms and protocols impose new dictums of behaviour (leadership if you will), the conduct of affairs, and in many instances, the way one thinks. A kind of landlordism of the mind takes place kneeling at that particular altar of worship. Human instincts surrender to something beyond the boundaries of human compassion or human reasoning. A church of another kind; – one that imposes its own rules and ordinances.
Reflecting on this as once a member of such roundtables, I recently looked at three events in modern times where this submission of human instincts of free thinking, and independent minds succumbed to other dictums. All of which was at the heart behind a sequence of events with tragic consequences.
# January 1986 Challenger Disaster
Only 78 seconds into its flight, the vehicle disintegrated in a powerful explosion. The commission report set up to investigate the accident subsequently cited a technical fault in an ‘O’ ring seal failed in one of the solid-fuel boosters rockets causing the deaths of seven astronauts.
Now consider the following. Morton Thiokol manufacturers of these booster rockets; -long cylindrical tube-like structures assured NASA over and over that the boosters were fit for flight, despite lower temperatures that January 28th. One senior engineer–a project manager at Thiokol armed with data that clearly showed the enhanced risk to the flight due to ‘O’ seals elasticity limits would be breached with the anticipated temperatures at Cape Kennedy. Despite his sometimes argumentative pleadings to delay the launch,–even clashing with his superior’s, his fears were ignored. The opposing view had two components. Number (1) – The data he used did not specifically indicate ‘O’ ring failure would occur, even though the tolerances were on the edge of expansion limits, supporting the arguments of their senior Programme manager. Number (2) Another delay could jeopardise Thiokol’s reputation as a contractor to NASA, and this weighed heavily in the decision. The turmoil that ensued the night before the launch was a tortuous dynamic of conflicting emotions inside Thiokol Headquarters. He was put in a position to give categorical proof the seals would fail, in other words, ‘put up or shut up.’ A perverse position to be in, and almost impossible to counter. What ensued was a conflict between reputational standing, commercial viability, human safety, and conscience. At its heart, this particular roundtable, the individual voice of dissent was drowned out permitting the company to give the green light for the flight to proceed. The following fateful morning, pictures of the gantry structures showed icicles handing in the cold Florida morning. One can only imagine the effect these images had on this programme manager’s mind. One particular documentary carried later, showed footage of this senior engineer sitting with his family watching the countdown on TV. His face was a mask of anxiety and trepidation. What followed after the vehicle throttled up was beyond words to describe this man’s face when the detonation blew the Shuttle apart, and with it, its crew of seven souls.
One can only imagine the difference; –if any, had he managed to go beyond his role, and scream at the top of his lungs – ‘This could kill everyone on board.’
# Fast Forward to February 2003.
The Columbia Disaster.
After several days in Earth orbit, the Shuttle Columbia broke up and disintegrated 38 miles above Texas on its final approach to landing. The disaster happened after searing plasma gasses of over 3,000 degrees, seeped into the leading edge of the crafts wing section unleashed a massive breach of the Shuttle’s structural integrity and ultimately its destruction. Here again, as in the past, such tragic events are described as serious technical malfunctions. In this instance, there was no third-party contractor involved. Subsequent evidence of this disaster showed human frailties played a hand, a lethal cocktail of human judgment, and the politics of fear. It transpires the cause of this awful disaster was observed and captured on camera but without any comprehension of its lethal consequence. For over sixteen days while the crew operated in space, blissfully and perhaps, mercifully unaware, that their deaths were imminent, events on the ground were tragically human in nature. As with Challenger, individual engineers spoke out noting the foam strike during the closely monitored launch sequence. A piece innocuously strikes the Shuttle and appeared to dissolve in a cloud of mist. I say innocuously because the imagery was astonishingly deceptive and seemed to indicate no more than the breaking of light foam pieces with little harm. In fact, it was far more sinister. The piece turned out to be the size of a small carryall suitcase or briefcase. Given the upward accelerating forces of the launch vehicle, and the downward trajectory of the piece –the relative impact velocity was in the region of 500 miles per hour. In effect, and shown subsequently by experiment- this ripped through the leading wing surface like a knife through butter and, as transpired by later events, allowed these gases to burn like a blow torch through the skin of the craft.
More ominous still was the human dynamics on the ground. Without releasing the full destructive nature of those fleeting images, a few engineers were concerned enough to raise the issue. Again as in Challenger- NASA has its culture, its hierarchical system –its protocols, and taboos. It remains a moot point, as to what could have been done, had the problem been recognised for what it was, but in this instance, the issue was people of power, of authority, were themselves hostage to norms of conduct. An edifice of technology, built upon layers of bureaucracy populated by engineers with impressive pedigrees, and, where it would seem- data speaks the loudest. When these engineers tried to bring a heightened sense of caution- an urgency to alert others to possible issues with the craft, they were met with ‘Where is the data to support your concern’. A complete absence of sensitivity or alertness to the risk-profile looming 700 miles above them. One engineer in particular–tried to escalate the matter in closed-session meetings. Seating no more than several seats from the Shuttle Flight Director –the only female up to then to hold such a position, could not be approached. It would be seen as unprofessional and against all codes of conduct within the culture.
NASA’s protocols had strict rules about breaking ranks or direct contacts with more senior ranks. Such environments seem to doom the crew of Columbia to their awful fate. Even asking the astronauts to carry out an external inspection of the craft was ruled out. Another occasion asked if one of the Mission Specialist might use a side port on the lower deck of the craft to look out and check visually, was dismissed. Citing every second in orbit is designated to assigned tasks and experimental tests, and deviating from these was an unnecessary distraction. Particularly, when there was no compelling data. In further efforts to find stronger evidence, these senior engineers became more concerned. Sharper resolution images convinced them they were looking at a foam piece much larger than in past episodes. Here again, single voices –individual moral choices and courage took the step of formally requesting Satellite support. Re-tasking one of the army’s communications satellites to take photographs of the inverted Columbia. Yet again –without any data, no such intervention was deemed warranted. A deadly and toxic broken system of governance and blindness.
While all of this played in the corridors of NASA’s church of operational efficacy, and prowess;- worldwide viewers were treated to live images of the seven crew laughing, two females and five males blowing kisses to loved ones back on Earth, joking, and enjoying playfully showing the effects of zero gravity. Surreal and tragic morphed into images of Shakespearean proportions.
What is it about the structures of organisations that impose these sterile strictures? No religious order imposes such reckless disregard for fellow humans by dehumanising how we work, pray, or lead others. In these two tragic stories of pioneering bravery, and adventure, lies another tale. A scale of cosmic imbalance, between keeping true to our individualism, and our personal code of values, and no matter how well meaning organisational structures operate, it must never be at the expense of our humanity. Sadly, 14 members of Challenger and Columbia husbands and wivessay otherwise.
Equally, how strange it must have been when the officer of the watch called out to his captain that night on April 15th, 1912 –Titanic
’We need to slow down Sir. There are reported Ice Fields ahead. We’re going too fast.’
No such chance. Regardless of the facts, or the risks that lay ahead, the need for White Star’s reputation to be the fastest at all costs was enough to silence the single voices of those who cared just a little more about being human… and so, over 1,000 souls were lost.
While reflecting all of the above, the accepted wisdom ascribes these truly traumatic, and shocking tragedies to technical failures:- the inevitable price of progress. I must respectfully and categorically disagree;-all of these disasters were utterly avoidable and were fundamentally of human origin. People imprisoned inside broken systems were responsible in part because we are imperfect and flawed but more so because we surrendered our inner voices to be suppressed, and in the process leaving our fingerprints of weakness, and timidity all over their headstones.
‘ If only…if only, people listened.’
Martin Jeremiah.
