Michael S. Pritchard's Commentary on "Dissent about Quality"
Author(s):
Michael S. Pritchard
Although convinced there may be reason to prefer catalyst B
to A, Bernie may also be convinced that deferring to the
judgment of the more experienced engineers is the best course
of action -- especially in this kind of situation. He may
actually be persuaded that the others are probably right. His
is a minority view, and he is considerably less experienced.
The recommendation apparently cannot wait for further testing.
Besides, Alex is Bernie's division head, and Bernie may believe
that his job is to do as he is told. So, Bernie may conclude,
it is best to support his colleagues' recommendation -- both
from the standpoint of Larom, Inc. and his own
self-interest.
However, four cautions should be noted from the outset.
First, although Bernie may have a general obligation to do what
he is told by his superiors, blind or unthinking obedience is
not obligatory. He has no obligation to do anything illegal or
unethical, regardless of which "authority" requests it. In this
case, it is not at all clear that Alex's superiors at Larom
would approve of his effort to falsify the report, or that they
would fault Bernie for refusing to comply with Alex's request.
After all, the report is for them. Why would they willingly
agree to be duped -- especially since approving the wrong
catalyst could turn out to be very costly to Larom?
Second, Bernie should be alert to the possibility of what
sociologist Irving Janis calls groupthink (Groupthink). This is
the tendency of cohesive groups to arrive at consensus at the
expense of critical thinking. Janis identifies eight "symptoms"
of groupthink:
- The illusion of group invulnerability. ("We've always
been right before.")
- Shared stereotypes. ("We/they" thinking about those
outside the group who may disagree -- the other as
"enemy.")
- Rationalizations.
- Unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality.
("We're all committed to doing the right thing.")
- Self-censorship by individual members. (Reluctance to
"rock the boat.") 6. The illusion of unanimity. (Silence
taken as agreement.)
- Direct pressure applied to ensure conformity when
dissenting opinions are expressed. ("We can't wait
forever.")
- Mind-guarding. (Keeping outsiders who have dissenting
views from presenting their views directly to the group --
"I'll pass your concerns on to the group.")
Several of these symptoms seem to be present at the initial
meeting. There is evidence that at least some of the senior
members of the group share the illusion of invulnerability
("We've been working on projects like this for years....").
Rationalizations for not having done more research on catalyst
B follows on the heels of this illusion. Given the shared
purpose of recommending the best catalyst for the job, the
members may believe in the inherent morality of the group ("We
know we're on the right side"). Silence in response to Alex's
final look around the room for further comments may be the
result of some self-censorship (especially if Bernie fails to
speak up). This, in turn, feeds the illusion of unanimity.
Finally, Alex's evident desire to orchestrate the group to a
quick and decisive resolution indicates a readiness to apply
direct pressure to any dissenters. Given that much may be at
stake for Larom in this situation, Bernie is well advised to be
alert to such group dynamics, rather than simply deferring his
more senior colleagues.
Third, Bernie seems to be the only one with evidence that
catalyst B might be preferable, and his previous work with
catalyst B has already impressed Alex. If he does not speak up,
who will? It is unfortunate that Alex did not assign Bernie to
work on catalyst B earlier. Perhaps sometime earlier Bernie
should have made a special point of discussing with his
colleagues some of his previous work with catalyst B. But why
didn't Alex take the lead? It seems that an opportunity for
significant research when Bernie first joined the R&D
Division was lost. However, shifting responsibility to Alex for
lacking foresight does not relieve Bernie of responsibility for
speaking up now.
Fourth, Bernie is not only asked to suppress data about
catalyst B but also to alter the other data. That is, he is
asked to lie. Alex no doubt sees this as a lie intended to
"protect the truth," since he believes that catalyst A really
is best. However, as Sissela Bok convincingly argues, even lies
of this sort are ethically questionable (Lying: Moral Choice in
Public and Private Life). She points out that we have a
tendency to overestimate the good that comes from lying and to
underestimate the harm that comes from lying. Individually and
collectively lies do much to undermine trust. Also, by
deceiving others, lies often lead people to make decisions they
would not make if they had more reliable information, thus
undermining their autonomy. Bok concludes that we should lie
only after looking carefully to see if any alternatives
preferable to lying are available.