Imagine driving on busy Auckland road, in a queue of cars, almost bumper to bumper. Just for that split second, your attention shifts to glance at something on the sidewalk to the left. Now, you have done this many, many times, with no adverse result. However, this time, at that exact moment, the queue stops and in the split second when you look back to the queue your reflexes cannot stop the car in time and you hit the back of the car in front.
This is rather like the zero infinity dilemma. When you glance to the left, there is a very, very small probability that the queue will stop. If it does, then, well, the consequences are quite severe, all out of proportion with the small lapse in attention.
Many companies send men and woman into dangerous situations to get or do things needed for the business to operate. Very often, there is vanishingly small likelihood of some event occurring, but if it does, then people die.
There are always clues, signs, very often very small. They may occur regularly, responded to vigorously perhaps first few times then become like the boy who cried wolf.
Then, one day, at that exact moment, the collision of circumstance occurs… the circumstances of a clue so often attended to, now seemingly ho hum, collides with some other set of circumstances, and people die.
If I glance to left, and hit the car in front, am I accountable, yes, I am.
If I did not pay attention to clues, and circumstances collided, am I accountable, yes I am.
Now imagine months before, we are directors of the business, we can ensure safety to 99% within agreed budgets. To go to 100% safety will erode profits 18%. The discussion slides from lives, to the risk and to whether or not the business can weather the PR storm. Zero infinity is lost in a mass of statistics that say the risk is minimal, but we knew that … wanted it reaffirmed; talk of disaster just scare mongering.
The real problem is now clear; it is a set of ethics where the lives of those who do it, is less valuable than what they do. To be generous maybe it is just lack of insight into zero infinity, to be generous ….
This is rather like the zero infinity dilemma. When you glance to the left, there is a very, very small probability that the queue will stop. If it does, then, well, the consequences are quite severe, all out of proportion with the small lapse in attention.
Many companies send men and woman into dangerous situations to get or do things needed for the business to operate. Very often, there is vanishingly small likelihood of some event occurring, but if it does, then people die.
There are always clues, signs, very often very small. They may occur regularly, responded to vigorously perhaps first few times then become like the boy who cried wolf.
Then, one day, at that exact moment, the collision of circumstance occurs… the circumstances of a clue so often attended to, now seemingly ho hum, collides with some other set of circumstances, and people die.
If I glance to left, and hit the car in front, am I accountable, yes, I am.
If I did not pay attention to clues, and circumstances collided, am I accountable, yes I am.
Now imagine months before, we are directors of the business, we can ensure safety to 99% within agreed budgets. To go to 100% safety will erode profits 18%. The discussion slides from lives, to the risk and to whether or not the business can weather the PR storm. Zero infinity is lost in a mass of statistics that say the risk is minimal, but we knew that … wanted it reaffirmed; talk of disaster just scare mongering.
The real problem is now clear; it is a set of ethics where the lives of those who do it, is less valuable than what they do. To be generous maybe it is just lack of insight into zero infinity, to be generous ….
No comments:
Post a Comment