“At times, the consequences of bad leadership and toxic culture are not just high turnover rate or bad customer experience – in extreme situations, it leads to the loss of life”.
In the 2022 Netflix film “Downfall: The Case Against Boeing,” we see how Boeing's alleged prioritisation of profit over safety may have contributed to two catastrophic crashes within months of each other. The film also serves as a powerful example of how bad leadership and toxic culture can lead to dire consequences, including loss of life. Boeing’s shift from a culture of safety to one focused solely on speed and performance is a cautionary tale for all organisations.
From High Performance to Dysfunctional: The Shift in Culture at Boeing
Before the merger with McDonnell Douglas, American aerospace and defence company, Boeing, thrived in a culture of mutual trust. Employees felt valued and heard, knowing that safety was paramount. They could raise concerns without fear of retaliation, creating a sense of belonging and pride in their work. One employee reminisced, "The culture back then was we’re all in this together, and Boeing’s gonna look out for you, and we expect you to look out for Boeing. It was an excellent company to work for."
However, post-merger, the culture changed drastically. Speed became the priority over safety, and employees who raised safety concerns were often ignored or punished. Whistleblowers experienced retaliation from the company and faced severe consequences such as getting a pay cut and even termination. This created an environment where employees feared speaking up, even in the face of significant safety risks.
The Gap Between Policy and Practice
As a result, two catastrophic incidents involving the deaths of over three hundred people in two plane crashes occurred, highlighting the dire state of Boeing's safety culture. In its effort to improve safety, Boeing implemented an official programme called "Speak Up" in 2019, designed to allow employees to confidentially report safety concerns. However, despite its existence, there was a clear disconnect between policy and practice. The Expert Review Panel found that "Speak Up" was still perceived within Boeing as a new and untrusted reporting programme. Employees feared retaliation, being denied bonuses, or even being fired for raising concerns, creating a toxic culture where safety issues remained unreported. Reports from the Federal Aviation Administration also suggested that Boeing’s safety culture remained flawed, with prioritisation of cost-cutting and schedule deadlines over safety, and a lack of trust in the reporting system.
As safety expert James Reason highlighted, “A safety culture is not something that springs up ready-made from a near-death experience; rather, it emerges gradually from the persistent and successful application of practical and down-to-earth measures.” This underscores a critical lesson: to build a successful or desired (safety) culture, it requires more than just a programme; it demands a genuine commitment from leadership and a culture of open communication.
Analogy of Car’s Transmission Fluid and Engine Oil to Organisational Programmes and Culture
Imagine a car. Engine oil lubricates the critical components of the internal combustion engine, reducing friction and wear, while transmission fluid ensures the seamless and smooth functioning of the entire transmission system. A car needs both well-maintained engine oil and transmission fluid to function optimally.
Similarly, in an organisational context, specific safety programmes like Human Factors (HF) training (equivalent to engine oil) are essential for smooth operation. However, the effectiveness of these programmes relies on the overall organisational culture, much like how a car’s performance depends on its overall condition as maintained by transmission fluid. With a robust safety culture (equivalent to a car’s transmission fluid), it can support and enhance the effectiveness of safety programmes.
Ultimately, an organisation requires both effective safety programmes and a strong healthy culture to achieve optimal efficiency and performance. If the organisational culture (or car) has underlying issues, merely implementing a programme (or adding engine oil) is not enough. A safety culture shapes how staff approach their work, influencing their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours towards safety and performance. It’s like the transmission fluid that ensures the smooth functioning of the entire system. Therefore, improving safety and performance require addressing the overall cultural environment, ensuring it fosters a commitment to safety alongside implementing specific programmes.
Conclusion
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast”
- Peter Drucker
Boeing's case stands as a powerful reminder of the dangers of prioritising speed over safety, and the risks of neglecting the development of a strong, high-performance organisational culture. As management consultant Peter Drucker famously said, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." He didn’t mean that strategy was unimportant, but rather that a powerful and empowering culture will amplify the effects of the same strategy towards organisational success.
Just like a car needs transmission fluid to function smoothly, organisations require a culture that fosters purpose and ambition, open communication, genuine leadership and staff commitment, and the well-being of its members. Prioritising an environment where employees feel empowered to voice concerns and contribute ensures long-term success. By learning from Boeing’s experience, we can build workplaces where a positive culture and performance co-exist, driving the organisation toward achievement of success outcomes.
Comentarios