Commenter Paul Compton addressed one issue in my post about the Flint water crisis, the question of whether avoidable disasters require some high-ranking individual with responsibility for the problem to resign or be fired as a vital symbolic statement that there will be official accountability when a system breaks down. I wrote, in reference to the calls for Michigan Governor Snyder to resign:
“Should Snyder resign? He wasn’t responsible for the fiasco, but he’s accountable: it’s his state, environmental protection agency, and water boards. He’s not the only one who should step up and fall on his sword, but sure: if you’ve read here for long, you know I support leaders and managers losing their jobs when massive screw-ups happen on their watch, especially when, as in this case, it is a joint effort.”
Here is Paul responding to that statement, in the Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Questions And Answers Regarding The Flint, Michigan Water Crisis”:
I agree completely; and disagree just as completely.
I have mentioned before that I am opposed to the Darth Vader school of man management. If someone has to fall on their sword every time they fail somewhere – even fail fairly spectacularly – not only will it be impossible for people to learn from their mistakes but we will soon run out of people who have any sort of competence at all.
An example:
Arthur Wellesley purchased a commission as Lieutenant-Colonel in the 33rd Regiment – he was already in the army and had seen some action by that time. At the battle of Seringapatam he advanced at night over un-reconnoitred ground and was soundly defeated resulting in some twenty five men killed. It has been suggested that if his brother had not been Governor-General of India he would have been court-martialed. We would never have had the Duke of Wellington, the only undefeated commander of his era.
Surely as people move up the chain of command their opportunities for catastrophic failure increase at each step. Added to that, the further up you go the more you are dependent on the performance of those below you. This, coupled with armchair critics and those with an agenda, can lead to a situation where the ‘boss’ cops it in the back for situations that are completely beyond their control.
An example:
The First World War naval Battle of Jutland, and the British Commander Sir John Jellicoe, were much criticised over subsequent years. The Royal Navy ran a battle school on the situation for over thirty years. At one such session, whilst he was present, Jellicoe was soundly criticised by all taking part. At the end Jellicoe was asked to comment. He walked out onto the floor – a map of the entire North Sea – and drew a circle around his flagship, commenting: “Always remember, that was the limit of my visibility”.
I am not suggesting for one second that people should not be held accountable for their failures; and the idea that the failure was multifaceted does not excuse people for their part in the fiasco. Equally I am certain that invariably hanging a couple of people out to dry so that we have a scapegoat is just as unprofitable. In Australia Workplace Health and Safety is a big (bureaucratic nightmare) issue, but a key feature is identifying failures and trying to ensure they don’t happen again.
Certainly incompetence or maleficence can not be overlooked, but revenge, for want of a better word, is not helpful.
People have to step up and publicly accept responsibility for their part in a fiasco like this without trying to deflect or share the blame. But ALL involved need to do that and the situation must be assessed thoroughly for lessons to be learned rather than a trial by media and innuendo. Fat chance of that, much to the detriment of us all. By the way, anyone who does not step up and is then found to be culpably involved gets the axe, no ifs and buts.
Quite probably the governor, and others, should fall on their swords but equally if they do so and say: “I stuffed up, I’m sorry I will try to learn from this” then I would be happy for them to run for their positions again; and I’d vote for them.
If we do not allow people to fail and recover we are doomed.
But then, as I’ve said before, I’m an incurable romantic!
____________________
I’m back. I last wrote on this topic here. An overview…
The military has a tradition of holding the commanding officer responsible for disasters even when their culpability is dubious, because the alternative is sending the message that outrageous human error and incompetence will be tolerated, and that accountability is only abstract, not real. Was Adm. Kimmel solely responsible for the series of misses, botches, deceits and bad luck that resulted in Pearl Harbor? No, but as the man in charge, he was the appropriate figure to hold accountable. Was Captain Charles B. McVay III fairly court-martialed for the Indianapolis disaster? Later investigations concluded that his punishment was overly severe. ( He committed suicide, a tragedy that was moral luck, ambiguous, and irrelevant.) However, when a ship sinks and a large number of sailors are eaten by sharks, the Navy is ill-advised to shrug its metaphorical shoulders and say, “Stuff happens!”
If someone is held accountable, the message then is, “But it shouldn’t have happened, and we don’t tolerate such ‘stuff’.” Organizationally and culturally, this is wise, prudent and responsible. Individually, it may be unfair. It is an ethics conflict, in which ethical values compete with each other for priority. I believe the resolution of this conflict is clear. Donald Rumsfeld attempted to resign as Defense Secretary after Abu Ghraib, and that was the right thing to do, even though he had no part in the decision to place a hillbilly crew in charge of Iraqi prisoners. President Bush was mistaken not to accept his resignation.
I admit that my position on this issue has hardened after the spectacle of the Obama Administration seldom holding anyone responsible for various fiascoes, but it was a pattern begun in the Bush years. Nobody, for example, lost their jobs, at least publicly, as a result of the “weapons of mass destruction” botch. George Tenet, the CIA head, was even awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom after he retired. This was a horrible message, even though the award was for Tenet’s accomplishments before the Iraq invasion.
It’s not revenge to hold an official accountable for a catastrophe that occurs while he or she is in charge. It should be understood as a condition and risk of employment.
Ethics Alarms 
The key sentences are “It’s not revenge to hold an official accountable for a catastrophe that occurs while he or she is in charge. It should be understood as a condition and risk of employment.”
This is what makes people careful and vigilant and produces administrations that have a climate of respect and accountability. Look at the president’s own security people. The Secret Service which should be the best of the best has become a swamp of incompetence and vice.
Only if such accountability is imposed following a full and impartial inquiry of the facts.
Otherwise, it is scapegoating, which defies ethics.
It is never scapegoating to hold a leader accountable for failure.
I just remembered my post on this. Here: https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/09/30/terry-francona-accountability-and-moral-luck/
It is if their culpability is “dubious”
Leaders choose leaders for the positions below them. Accountability is expected at every level. If the head of an organization doesn’t know what’s going on he has chosen poor subordinates.
A leader’s job is to succeed. If his organization crashed and burns, it’s not scapegoating to expect him to resign.
“A leader’s job is to succeed. If his organization crashed and burns, it’s not scapegoating to expect him to resign.” Neather is it a punishment. It is clearing the deck to give someone else a chance to succeed.
The captain of the Vincennes should have been severely punished, as should most on the bridge, and a few in the CIC.
Heads should have rolled amongst the trainers, and at least 3 layers up the chain of command.
I’ve seen the video taken on the bridge, and the (classified) AN/AX tapes.
I very rarely use profanity. These weren’t professional warriors, they were fucking cowboys.
A black mark to the HCI (Human Compiter Interface) engineers too – lessons were learnt there. But the main problem was the dangerous clowns in charge.
Possibly the USN’s darkest hour that the captain not only didn’t get 30 to life, but got promoted to cover it up.
I’m confused… Are you talking about 1988? Because Captain Rogers was never promoted.
That is not only unethical, it defies ethics.
Nothing in Paul Compton’s comment suggested that would be appropriate. he plainly disavowed the notion that “people should not be held accountable for their failures”.
If someone is held “accountable” when their culpability is dubious, it sends the message that “somebody has to pay; facts be damned!”
That kind of thinking led to things like the Salem witch trials, the Kern County sex abuse cases.
I understand the instinct to believe that just because something bad happens, there must be a villain, and the villain must be punished. But there is not always a villain.
There is no ethics conflict.
A wise, prudent, and responsible decision can only arise after a fair and impartial inquiry into the facts. Only then can procedures be adopted to reduce or eliminate the possibility of failure, and the culpability of the involved parties be judged, and accountability be taken. Accountability when “culpability is dubious” is not accountability at all.
That’s the ethics conflict! Yes, it may be unfair to the individual, but concluding that horrible things happen and nobody is held accountable undermines trust, and that harms the entire system and culture.
You are effectively writing that, regardless of the facts, we must never conclude that “horrible things happen and nobody is held accountable” because to for so “undermines trust”. That is a self-refuting statement if I ever read one.
To reinforce or restore trust after “horrible things happen”, we must start with an inquiry into the facts.
The inquiry must be fair.
The inquiry must be impartial.
The inquiry must be transparent.
Only then can appropriate action be taken.
That is what will restore or reinforce trust.
I’m pretty sure Jack’s implicit context wasn’t universal. The context here is for formal organizations that depend on the large scale public’s support to function. Governments, charities, etc. Not Bob’s Car Mart.
In those cases the ethics conflict are weighted heavily towards the public and firing a manager for a failure that occurs under his watch is the lesser of the two ethical fouls.
In the case of smaller scale public support requirements the greater ethical weight lies with the individual, since firing people for things that they’re not responsible for will reduce the internal support and effectiveness of the organization more than will a loss of some public support.
Yikes, yes, of course—I assumed it was understood that this is the context. Thanks for the clarification, RPE.
Michael, when an organization concludes after an investigation that nobody was at fault, nobody believes the investigation.
The organization’s conclusion must be based on nothing but the truth, discovered after a fair, impartial, and transparent investigation.
What others may believe is beside the point.
If others refuse to believe the conclusions of a fair, impartial, and transparent investigation, that is their problem, not the investigators.
I sympathize with the concept, but the proper approach is for leaders to recognize that they are expected to accept dire consequences when there is a massive failure under their leadership, unless it is literally an “act of God”. Ike was prepared to resign if D-Day had failed, and that was correct. If George Bush has resigned after invading Iraq under bad intelligence, the US would be a stronger place today. Finding who is at fault for complex failures is daunting, and all investigations are polluted mistakes and bias. It is safer and healthier to have it understood that at very least, someone at the top of the chain of command will lose his or her job.
Sacking people who aren’t responsible for the disaster also undermines trust. In fact, it sends the message “Well, if there’s a screwup, we’ll fire whoever was in charge rather than actually bother to figure out what went wrong.”
And indeed, I often get the feeling that is precisely the mindset that goes into such decisions. “Oh, this person wasn’t even responsible for it, but they’re getting fired.”
It is scapegoating. And scapegoating is not only morally wrong, it is dangerous.
You suggested that firing lesser people when they were the ones responsible, rather than someone else who wasn’t, was wrong. But that’s exactly what all competent leaders should do! If their underlings fail them, then they should be firing them. That is precisely the behavior of an ethical organization. Indeed, failure to fire the people who are responsible for the failures sends the message that people aren’t personally responsible for their errors, which is a terrible ethical message to send.
Moreover, firing people who are in charge when things go bad disrupts the organization at a time when they need to be figuring out what to do – changing leadership just sends them into greater disarray. Obviously, if the leadership is responsible for the failure, they need to get the boot, but simply requiring them to resign when their organization fails means that you’re depriving the organization of a lot of learning opportunities.
Also, the higher you go, the harder it is to really find effective people. Most leadership positions are inadequetely staffed; if you actually have someone who is competent, getting rid of them is a terrible idea, even if their organization did make a mistake.
That is not always the case. it depends on the degree of failure and the underlings’ own culpability.
Historically, massive failures often result in firing the leadership, but I suspect it is for a different reason than “we need to blame someone to appease the public; facts be damned.”
Massive, colossal failures usually turn out to arise from systemic failures in closed action corrective loops. The leadership has the responsibility to design procedures so that errors do not accumulate and build up on another. Relying solely on underlings’ vigilance to prevent catastrophes inevitably leads there. See this article by William A. Levinson.
http://psqh.com/cant-rather-than-dont-saves-lives
Regarding this Flint crisis, it would not surprise if it turned out the only safety measures were, “Be careful.”
I don’t think you can argue against military scapegoating to Analogize that to scapegoating in the civilian world. Whereas I don’t think scapegoating is ethical, I do think the military’s role and mission doesn’t benefit if EVERY last culpable individual is ransacked from the chain of command. We’d render our military useless if we purged every error from its ranks (and the pace of military action and advancement leaves many individuals in error-prone positions). Therefore military scapegoating is acceptable in utilitarian terms.
I agree with Paul’s comments. A price had to be paid and liability (responsibility) rolls uphill to the highest ranking officer in charge. Accountability is the only way to establish and ensure trust in government.
I know this would never happen in the US, but under a parliamentary system, a “No Confidence” vote would be an effective way to deal with whole scale government failure like what is happening in Flint, MI.
The disaster has resulted in finger-point and is polarized between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans point to government inefficiency, cronyism, corruption, and whole host of other Democrat policies,. The Democrats point fingers at state Republicans for not allocating funds as requested and needed to address systemic problems in poorer communities.
This happened on a Republican governor’s watch, notwithstanding that Flint, MI failed as a local government many, many years ago. The Republican governor, Rick Snyder, retained a popular and locally known state-appointed emergency manager, Darnell Early. Early does not appear to have been up to the task of dealing with a problem of this magnitude. Snyder is responsible for retaining Early and the political consequences/fallout lay at his feet.
As for the city managers/council members, mayor, and others running the place, they should all be run out of town. If they knew that the switch over to Lake Huron water would take 3 years, and they have absolutely no contingency plans to deal with inadequate infrastructure, then they are, by definition incompetent. This reminds me of the Affordable Care Act website roll-out debacle. Heads should have rolled but no one paid a price for it.
jvb
At least two heads rolled- the former mayor of Flint as well as Department of Environmental Quality Director. And unless I learn of evidence to the contrary, I agree that those particular heads should roll.
This just in: http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-epa-official-has-resigned-over-flint-water-crisis/
From Reason.com
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/22/flint-lead-poisoning-the-anatomy-governm
From the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flint-lead-water-epa_us_569522a8e4b086bc1cd5373c
An update
http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/25/the-flint-water-crisis-is-the-result-of