Unintended Evil: The Challenger Disaster was Preventable
Max Bazerman has authored or co-authored 19 books in the field of decision making, negotiation, and ethics. Bazerman’s latest book, co-authored with Ann E. Tenbrunsel, called Blind Spot (2011) is the main source of material for this interview. Bazerman and Tenbrunsel argue that expensive ethics interventions within organizations will always fail because they are predicated on the faulty assumption that individuals always recognize an ethical dilemma when it is presented to them. Bazerman argues that, in fact, we often behave contrary to our best ethical intentions without knowing it. In Blind Spot, Bazerman points to case studies that illustrate ethical lapses such as the Challenger space shuttle disaster, steroid use in Major League Baseball, the crash in the financial markets, and the energy crisis, as well as numerous case studies that informs his current research. What all of these catastrophes teach us is that decision makers can be blinded by self-interest or “Group think” or other psychological motivations and commit ethical lapses without realizing it.
This idea of a blind spot has also informed previous books on the subject of negotiation, in which Bazerman argues that a negotiator’s failure to see and use accessible and perceivable information while seeing and using other equally accessible and perceivable information hinders value in negotiations.
Max Bazerman: A tough question is, what do you do when you’re part of a group and you’re not the leader of the group, and the leader and the others are moving in a particular direction, and you think that it has ethical problems? If we take a look at the Challenger story, there were two engineers who were fighting against the launch, but it turns out that they weren’t particularly well-organized in their data presentation. And the fact that they weren’t well-prepared, the fact that their arguments were primarily affective rather than reasoned, really impeded their ability to have an impact.
The evening before the launch of the Challenger there was a meeting, and some of the engineers at Morton Thiokol who provided the engine believed that there were problems with the O-rings at temperatures below 53 degrees. They provided that argument, and NASA, under political pressure, dramatically wanted to launch.
Most astounding was the engineers were looking at the seven previous launches out of twenty-four where there had been problems. and they couldn’t discern an appropriate pattern. What they failed to do was to ask what any engineer should have known, and that is if you want to know whether temperature is related to O-ring failure, you need to look at the successes and the failures.
Throughout this process there was virtually no discussion about the fact that seven astronauts had their lives at stake. The discussion turned entirely technical. It had very much of a managerial feel to it, and the ethical part of the decision faded from awareness.
So the question is, what kind of intervention might have been effective? And the amazing part of the Challenger story is that the intervention was shockingly easy. All that was really needed was for somebody to say, "If we want to know 'is temperature related to O-ring failure,' what data do we need?" And the answer is quite obvious: we need to look at the data for all twenty-four launches rather than just the seven launches with problems to see if there’s a difference in temperature between successful and unsuccessful launches. Had somebody asked that question it would have been very easy to get the other seventeen data points. And when you look at all twenty-four data points together the decision to not launch becomes extremely obvious.
So one critical issue for group members who think that they’re going to be confronting a situation where they’re going to have a limited opportunity to convince others to move in a different direction is to make sure that you’ve put all your data together, you have a good, reasoned argument so that people can see the wisdom of a more ethical direction.
Directed / Produced by
Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd
The Bajau people's nomadic lifestyle has given them remarkable adaptions, enabling them to stay underwater for unbelievable periods of time. Their lifestyle, however, is quickly disappearing.
- The Bajau people travel in small flotillas throughout the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, hunting fish underwater for food.
- Over the years, practicing this lifestyle has given the Bajau unique adaptations to swimming underwater. Many find it straightforward to dive up to 13 minutes 200 feet below the surface of the ocean.
- Unfortunately, many disparate factors are erasing the traditional Bajau way of life.
Here's the first evidence to challenge the "fastest sperm" narrative.
An innovation may lead to lifelike evolving machines.
- Scientists at Cornell University devise a material with 3 key traits of life.
- The goal for the researchers is not to create life but lifelike machines.
- The researchers were able to program metabolism into the material's DNA.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.