Assisting cheats to prosper
Cheats never prosper is a saying that gets drummed into you early in life. This year the old saying has not exactly been shown to be true. Cheats do prosper, albeit for a short time before they inevitably get found out. But even when they do get found out they do not always have to pay reparation equivalent to their ill gotten gains. 2009 has been the year of cheating: MPs' expenses, bankers' bonuses, the Renault Formula 1 team and, more recently, Harlequins rugby club. (Luckily, it was not the editor's team, Northampton, otherwise this article would look like the MPs' expenses published on the web, with most words blacked out!)
An interview with the disgraced Harlequins' director of rugby published in a newspaper carried the strap line '....why he tried to cover it up and why he hopes rugby will learn from his mistakes'. This immediately caught my eye. What mistakes I wondered? Getting caught? Back in July I wrote about learning lessons from mistakes. Everyone is prone to mistakes and learning from them and coping with them is all part of being human. But there is a worrying trend. 'Learning from mistakes' is being used to deflect criticism and put a more acceptable interpretation on events.
A mistake is an error of judgement. It is something that we do because we lack the required knowledge or information. Or our judgement is impaired because we are tired, under time pressure and we have to act quickly. A mistake is not a premeditated wilful act, either contrary to established rules or procedures or in defiance of existing knowledge, which just happens not to achieve the intended goal. In the interview, the Harlequins' director of rugby admitted that he had cheated and that he knew it was wrong. There isn't a lesson to be learnt directly from such a deliberate act because the lesson already existed and was deliberately ignored.
The press coverage of 'Bloodgate' makes for fascinating reading. Articles have described other ways of cheating which range from the use of fake blood and taking drugs all the way down to placing a pillar in the middle of a dressing room so that the opposing team coach cannot remain in full view of all his players. The less serious acts are not called cheating but wrapped in a cloak of respectability by being referred to as gamesmanship.
As with all incidents there are lessons to be drawn, but only if you ask the correct questions. Bloodgate will not tell you how to prevent cheating but it does show how to create the ideal conditions so that people will cheat and will try to cover it up. First of all, put undue emphasis on one measure of success, in this case winning, and reward only that success at the expense of other desired behaviours. Impose complicated rules which are not easy to adhere to and are difficult to police. Ignore transgressions as long as there isn’t a financial penalty to the organisation in doing so. Ensure that the higher levels of the organisation are out of touch with what is actually going on at the coal face.
There is a quotation from an executive in the nuclear industry which states: "professionalism is what we do when we think no-one is looking." If you google this you will find a similar quotation attributed to H Jackson Brown Jr, with 'professionalism' replaced by 'character'. Character, professionalism, genetics and upbringing are only contributors to what we do, and what we persuade others to do, when we think no-one is looking. The controversial experiment performed by the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1950s showed how easy it was to get normal people to transgress both their own personal limits and socially acceptable behaviour and impose pain on others. Bloodgate shows that his experiment still holds true today. It just needs the right, or more correctly the wrong, conditions and situation. It is incumbent on any supervisor or manager to actively impart the correct culture and to create the necessary environment so that their team will discharge their tasks competently and within the appropriate rules and regulations. This is particularly relevant to hazardous and safety-related industries including NDT. Unfortunately, it is not an easy task. Do we try hard enough? We now know what Harlequins did when they thought no-one was looking. What are we implicitly encouraging people to do when they think no-one is looking?
Could a Bloodgate occur on our watch?
Please note that the views expressed in this column are the author's own personal ramblings for the purpose of encouraging discussion within the NDT Newspaper. They do not represent the views of the IVC, Serco Assurance or the HSE who funded the PANI projects.
Letters can be mailed to The Editor, NDT News, Newton Building, St George's Avenue, Northampton NN2 6JB. Fax: 01604 89 3861; Email: ndtnews@bindt.org or email Bernard McGrath direct at Bernard.McGrath@sercoassurance.com
An interview with the disgraced Harlequins' director of rugby published in a newspaper carried the strap line '....why he tried to cover it up and why he hopes rugby will learn from his mistakes'. This immediately caught my eye. What mistakes I wondered? Getting caught? Back in July I wrote about learning lessons from mistakes. Everyone is prone to mistakes and learning from them and coping with them is all part of being human. But there is a worrying trend. 'Learning from mistakes' is being used to deflect criticism and put a more acceptable interpretation on events.
A mistake is an error of judgement. It is something that we do because we lack the required knowledge or information. Or our judgement is impaired because we are tired, under time pressure and we have to act quickly. A mistake is not a premeditated wilful act, either contrary to established rules or procedures or in defiance of existing knowledge, which just happens not to achieve the intended goal. In the interview, the Harlequins' director of rugby admitted that he had cheated and that he knew it was wrong. There isn't a lesson to be learnt directly from such a deliberate act because the lesson already existed and was deliberately ignored.
The press coverage of 'Bloodgate' makes for fascinating reading. Articles have described other ways of cheating which range from the use of fake blood and taking drugs all the way down to placing a pillar in the middle of a dressing room so that the opposing team coach cannot remain in full view of all his players. The less serious acts are not called cheating but wrapped in a cloak of respectability by being referred to as gamesmanship.
As with all incidents there are lessons to be drawn, but only if you ask the correct questions. Bloodgate will not tell you how to prevent cheating but it does show how to create the ideal conditions so that people will cheat and will try to cover it up. First of all, put undue emphasis on one measure of success, in this case winning, and reward only that success at the expense of other desired behaviours. Impose complicated rules which are not easy to adhere to and are difficult to police. Ignore transgressions as long as there isn’t a financial penalty to the organisation in doing so. Ensure that the higher levels of the organisation are out of touch with what is actually going on at the coal face.
There is a quotation from an executive in the nuclear industry which states: "professionalism is what we do when we think no-one is looking." If you google this you will find a similar quotation attributed to H Jackson Brown Jr, with 'professionalism' replaced by 'character'. Character, professionalism, genetics and upbringing are only contributors to what we do, and what we persuade others to do, when we think no-one is looking. The controversial experiment performed by the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1950s showed how easy it was to get normal people to transgress both their own personal limits and socially acceptable behaviour and impose pain on others. Bloodgate shows that his experiment still holds true today. It just needs the right, or more correctly the wrong, conditions and situation. It is incumbent on any supervisor or manager to actively impart the correct culture and to create the necessary environment so that their team will discharge their tasks competently and within the appropriate rules and regulations. This is particularly relevant to hazardous and safety-related industries including NDT. Unfortunately, it is not an easy task. Do we try hard enough? We now know what Harlequins did when they thought no-one was looking. What are we implicitly encouraging people to do when they think no-one is looking?
Could a Bloodgate occur on our watch?
Please note that the views expressed in this column are the author's own personal ramblings for the purpose of encouraging discussion within the NDT Newspaper. They do not represent the views of the IVC, Serco Assurance or the HSE who funded the PANI projects.
Letters can be mailed to The Editor, NDT News, Newton Building, St George's Avenue, Northampton NN2 6JB. Fax: 01604 89 3861; Email: ndtnews@bindt.org or email Bernard McGrath direct at Bernard.McGrath@sercoassurance.com
