Willful Blindness
The deliberate omission of information that might be upsetting or difficult to see is referred to as “willful blindness,” according to Margaret Heffernan. Individuals, organizations, and groups may engage in this activity, which can be harmful. Heffernan uses the town of Libby to demonstrate how W.R. Grace & Co. purposefully exposed the community’s residents to asbestos over time, resulting in significant sickness and fatalities. Despite clear warnings and proof of the risks associated with asbestos, the company tragically decided to continue operating. A psychological condition known as “willful blindness” occurs when individuals or groups consciously choose to ignore or avoid upsetting, uncomfortable, or challenging information. This behaviour can sometimes have terrible consequences and lead to passivity (Shane, 7). Willful blindness is frequently associated with unethical behaviour, even though it can occur in other circumstances, such as safety, security, or regulatory compliance.
Initially used in a legal context, the word “willful blindness” has since been used in several contexts, including business, medicine, and politics. In the business world, willful blindness can manifest in various ways, including disregarding unethical behaviour, failing to address safety concerns, or breaking the law. It can also occur at all organizational levels, from entry-level employees to senior executives. To solve the willful blindness issue, a business must create a culture of honesty, accountability, and moral behaviour (Pappalardo and Kylie, np). Employees should be urged to bring up management concerns, provided with the resources and assistance they need to do so, and held accountable for their actions or omissions. Companies ought to encourage a learning atmosphere where mistakes and failures are seen as opportunities for improvement.
A good example of deliberate ignorance in business is Enron. The company’s top executives knowingly ignored or misrepresented its financial position, which led to its collapse and significant harm to investors and workers. In the medical field, willful blindness can occur when physicians fail to reveal errors or safety concerns, putting patients in danger.
Unrocked Boat
According to J. Shane, the idea of the unrocked boat emphasizes the dangers of organizational mishaps because both active failures and latent conditions can cause them. Active failures, such as human error, subpar machinery, and environmental variables, directly and instantly cause accidents. However, the real causes of accidents are latent conditions, such as organizational culture, management choices, or resource limitations (Shane, 7). In contrast to the immediate causes or active failures, the phrase “unrocked boat” refers to the root causes of accidents or incidents. The unrocked boat can be compared to the latent conditions that increase the likelihood of mishaps occurring or the severity of those that do. The unrocked boat model was developed by psychologist James Reason, who studied the factors that lead to accidents in high-risk industries, such as incidents or components; accidents are usually the product of a combination of latent conditions and active failures.
Things like company culture, resource constraints, communication issues, or a lack of adequate training and supervision can all contribute to latent conditions. On the other hand, active failures are the real causes of an incident, such as human error, faulty machinery, or outside factors. According to the unrocked boat model, avoiding accidents by focusing only on active failures is ineffective because it neglects their underlying causes. Organizations need to understand the fundamental problems that result in latent conditions, which cause accidents, and deal with them. To handle the unrocked boat at Rutgers Business school, organizations must adopt a systemic approach that addresses both the underlying and immediate issues (10). This involves fostering a safety culture, spending money on oversight and training, setting up effective reporting and communication systems, and ensuring that rules and regulations are followed.
An example of an incident that meets these definitions occurred in 2010 with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The explosion that caused the oil rig to sink and the subsequent massive oil spill that severely harmed the ecosystem and economy of the Gulf of Mexico was an active failure. The accident’s underlying causes, however, were also significant. These included a need for more suitable safety procedures and training, shoddy coordination among the various parties concerned, and a preference for cost-cutting over safety. Another example is the Volkswagen (VW) Diesel Fraud Scandal, where defeat devices were put in diesel engines to avoid being subjected to pollution testing (Shane, 7). The driving force behind this active failure was the strain to succeed in the competitive automotive industry. However, there were underlying causes, including a profit-driven culture, a lack of responsibility and transparency, and ineffective governmental oversight.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 exemplifies an unrocked watercraft at work. An active failure occurred when the reactors broke down and discharged radioactive material due to the earthquake and wave. However, among the root causes of the disaster were a dearth of crisis planning, poor management-to-worker communication, and insufficient safety measures (Pappalardo and Kylie, np). Another example is the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, which claimed 72 lives in a high-rise domestic structure in London. There were underlying problems with inadequate fire safety procedures, a lack of supervision and regulation, and a culture of cost-cutting and carelessness, in addition to the obvious failure of the fire that began and spread rapidly.
In conclusion, the concepts of willful blindness and the unrocked boat highlight how important it is to handle both the immediate causes and underlying causes of accidents, unethical behaviour, and other kinds of damage. In the wake of business scandals or public health disasters, organizations must adopt a proactive approach that promotes accountability, transparency, and ethical behaviour. Additionally, this proactive approach must address problems like cultural pressure to succeed, a lack of regulatory compliance, and a reluctance to recognize potential risks. This will help minimize damage to individuals and society as a whole, promoting sustainability and long-term success.
Work Cited
Pappalardo, Kylie. A New Framework for Intermediary Liability: Copyright, Causation and Control on the Internet. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.
Rutgers Business School. Supply Chain Risk and Disruption Management. (2013) 1-13
Shane. J. Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework. (2013): 1-14 http://www.springer.com/978-3-319-00040-4
write