3 ms·

I suspect this is exactly what's happening - butt covering up and down the chain of command to avoid blame and legal liability. This makes sense in a short-ter

I suspect this is exactly what's happening - butt covering up and down the chain of command to avoid blame and legal liability. This makes sense in a short-term, myopic view limited to first-order effects. Enlightened crisis management isn't about the moral way out just for the sake of morality. It's about looking ahead to the second- and third-order effects. When Tylenol was poisoned with cyanide, Johnson & Johnson could have taken the short-term, myopic approach. They could have held press conferences to explain how this wasn't their fault, it wasn't their responsibility, that many factors contributed to the catastrophe. They could have lobbied regulators to leave Tylenol on store shelves because it was an isolated incident. Instead, Johnson & Johnson took responsibility. They communicated continuously. They to the initiative to remove all Tylenol products from the shelves. They redesigned the product to make it tamper-evident. And they led a campaign to educate people to inspect the seal and return any product where it was broken. This was very expensive. In the short term, Johnson & Johnson would have made more profit just concerning themselves with first-order effects. But in the long term, second- and third-order effects dominate. J&J enhanced their image, they made the Tylenol brand more valuable, and they built a deep reservoir of trust. Boeing should take a lesson.

luma 8y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges here. In the Tylenol case, it seemed clear that the cause wasn't neglicance on the part of J&J, and the remedy of clearing all product off the shelves probably cost them somewhere in the millions of dollars. In Boeing's case, the issue almost certainly is due to intentional actions taken by a number of people, and buying back existing 737 MAX8s + cancelling all future orders would amount to billions and could very well sink the company. I think the parent comment is spot-on. Boeing is playing a game of damage control, and they're presumably being advised by some smart and experienced people. They're not accepting blame, an act which we can assume is motivated by the legal implications of doing so.

luma 8y ago

You're comparing apples and oranges here. In the Tylenol case, it seemed clear that the cause wasn't neglicance on the part of J&J, and the remedy of clearing all product off the shelves probably cost them somewhere in the millions of dollars. In Boeing's case, the issue almost certainly is due to intentional actions taken by a number of people, and buying back existing 737 MAX8s + cancelling all future orders would amount to billions and could very well sink the company. I think the parent comment is spot-on. Boeing is playing a game of damage control, and they're presumably being advised by some smart and experienced people. They're not accepting blame, an act which we can assume is motivated by the legal implications of doing so.