ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE: LESSONS FROM SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA

First February 2003, would never be forgotten by NASA, Americans and all those who watched Space Shuttle Columbia’s re-entry.  As the world watched in disbelief, a beautiful morning turned tragic when “Columbia” on its earthbound journey, unable to withstand the heat of re-entry, fragmented into many fire balls shooting through the sky. The 27 previous successful missions under its wings, couldn’t prevent Colombia from its burning disintegration. The seven crew members who should have returned to celebrity status didn't make it home alive.

The catastrophic failure precipitated by damage to its left wing was initiated by "foam strike” “during the launch. The “problem with foam”, is believed to have been “known for many years”. It is also known that Department of Defence (DoD) had capabilities  to get a closer look at the breached left-wing, but NASA officials  had “declined the offer”. Post-incident investigations by Columbia Accident Investigations Board (CSAIB) Chaired by Admiral Harold Gehman in its harsh indictment[1] concluded the accident was rooted in the “space shuttle program history and culture”, …  . “Cultural traits and organisational practices detrimental to safety was allowed to develop, including reliance on past successes as a substitute for sound engineering practices,… organisational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements and the evolution of an informal channel of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organisation's rules”.  On not having obtained the DoD’s help with its high-resolution ground and space-based systems, it was found that requests were made by NASA's engineers through incorrect channels and when the request officially reached the appropriate authority, NASA cancelled request 90 minutes later.  It was felt that “no one knew of a requirement of an imagery”.  The report also brought out the “low level of concern by program managers”,  “lack of clear communication”, “lack of effective leadership”.

It is wrong to believe that Columbia was an exception. STS- 27 launched in December 1988, on a classified mission dedicated to the Department of Defence, had a similar story, with a tense but happier ending. The orbiter's thermal protection system tiles sustained severe damage during the flight.  Inspection using the robot arm with a limited resolution camera made it impossible to determine the full extent of the tile damage.  It is believed that, due to the classified nature of the mission, the crew was forced to send encrypted images resulting in NASA receiving poor quality of video which in turn led them to believe that the damage was actually, "just lights and shadows".  The crew was told by the Mission control that the damage was nothing more severe than the past missions. 

Mission Commander Robert Hoot Gibson, it is said that “did not think that the shuttle will survive re-entry”.  Inspections post landing, revealed over 700 damaged tiles and one missing. Hoot Gibson is said to have adversely remarked on the poor understanding of the real situation of the mission, by the mission control on ground.  It is also widely believed that this narrow escape led NASA to believe in the infallibility of their decisions.

The two incidents, though 15 year apart, clearly brings out the evolutionary process of organisational deviation and its after effects.  Most organisations are not as lucky as NASA, which is subjected to intense scrutiny.  Driven by aggressive and ambitious CEOs, egged on by “seemingly” appreciative “coterie” colleagues out to reap short-term benefits, organisations are destined to disintegrate. For short-term benefits, such CEOs turn blind eye to small deviant steps that eventually mar the long evolutionary process of Organisational culture. Branding professional difference of opinions as disloyalty, emergence of extra organisational hierarchies, visible presence of informal communication and decision systems indicate the overwhelming presence of the erosion of organisational culture. Reluctance to accept failures, deviations and refusal to allow external audit and help, confirm the disease of a deaf and dumb hierarchy blind to the impending doom. It doesn't take much time thereafter for an organisation, built brick-by-brick by the sweat and sacrifices of many people to come crashing down. 

Unfortunately, many those who are responsible for the debacle and precipitated the erosion would have fled the nest well in time leaving the hapless dedicated foot soldiers to fend for themselves.  Every industry has adequate examples to prove this point.  It is in the interest an organisation to foster the spirit of internal criticism to ensure that it doesn't deviate from organisational principles.  For that, it must first outline the sanctified boundaries of acceptable organisational practices.

Each situation offers opportunities for diverging views to emerge.  Each diverging view is an input for growth, provided it is evaluated and dealt with appropriately. Dismissing them as mere “play of lights and shadows” can actually kill organisational growth.  Branding bruised escapes as success without honest introspection can only hasten the process of disintegration.

---

[1] Congressional Research Service, (history.nasa.gov>congress.  Government ).

THE MIRAGE CALLED EQUALITY

Equality is a fallacy. Nothing was created equal. The concept of equality is propagated by those who have no idea of the efficiency equation. Neither God nor man has found means adequate enough to equalise input and output. Newton’s third law of motion notwithstanding, equality exists only in theory. HR practitioners who advocate treating the workforce with the yardstick of equality is involved in something that actually does not exist and pursuing something detrimental to the growth and health of the organisation.

Consider two individuals holding similar positions, with the same job description and responsibility in the same organisation. The organisation expects both the individuals to put in equal work, with the same expected level of dedication. Since equality of labour and compensation is an accepted norm, both the individuals have to be compensated equally for holding similar job titles or positions. Despite what each individual may contribute, both would end up being remunerated equally unless there is an effective system of performance linked compensation. This is one of the reason that governmental organisations are often infested with incompetent inefficient ineffective staff. Why should one person work and contribute more than the other, when there is no incentive to do so?

Absence of accountability is a common phenomenon in an organisation where equality job positions and remuneration is enforced. Despite differentials in input, if returns are equalised, there is no incentive for an individual to invest more than the other is his job. It goes against the basic tenant of ROI. Highly competitive fields like marketing where performance is monitored by numbers and compensated appropriately, one finds that individuals perform better.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for a person to treat two different individuals equally. How hard one may try, inter personnel relations, organisational dynamics and other unspoken elements dictate how one treats the other. The ability of the superior to handle a subordinate and extract the required quantum and quality of work output would also differ from person to person. Positional authority necessarily may not ensure equal extraction of output. The skill with which situations are handled, subordinates controlled, motivated and monitored will differ from person to person.

It is only when there is a sense of inequality can there be growth, competition and fulfilment. HR practitioners must create a robust system which ensures adequacy in compensation and objective accounting of the job quantum associated to each individual. Superiors must focus on creating a sense of inequality amongst competing individuals. While inequality introduced must create differentials between individuals that spot competition and growth, care must be taken that it does not degenerate into institutional discrimination against some. This is a fine art and cannot be mastered without practice. Superiors must provide subordinates with opportunities for growth and the wherewithal required. The dictum of treating subordinates equally is neither practical nor advisable and necessarily need not be pursued.