Jack Schitt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Posts
- 189
Good points Ace. Allow me to quote:
"Most people place a large value on personal autonomy, or sense of free will. We also impute this to others, so that when we learn that someone has committed an error with bad consequences, we assume that this individual actually chose an error-prone rather a 'sensible' course of action. In other words, we tend to perceive the errors of others as having an intentional element, particularly when their training and status suggest that 'they should have known better'. Such voluntary actions attract blame and recrimination, which in turn are felt to deserve various sanctions.
Our judgements of human actions are subject to similarity bias. We have a natural tendency to assume that disastrous outcomes are caused by equally monstrous blunders. In reality, of course, the magnitude of the disaster is determined more by situational factors than by the extent of the errors. Many bad accidents rise from a concatenation of relatively minor failings in different parts of the SYSTEM.
Finally, it cannot be denied that there is a great deal of emotional satisfaction to be gained from having someone (rather than something) to blame when things go badly wrong. Few of us are able to resist the pleasures of venting our psychic spleens on some convenient scapegoat. And in the case of organizations, of course, there is considerable financial advantage in being able to detach individual fallibility from corporate responsibility."
Basically what Ace is correctly stating is that "human error does not take place in a vacuum, but within the context of organizations which either resist or foster it."
"Most people place a large value on personal autonomy, or sense of free will. We also impute this to others, so that when we learn that someone has committed an error with bad consequences, we assume that this individual actually chose an error-prone rather a 'sensible' course of action. In other words, we tend to perceive the errors of others as having an intentional element, particularly when their training and status suggest that 'they should have known better'. Such voluntary actions attract blame and recrimination, which in turn are felt to deserve various sanctions.
Our judgements of human actions are subject to similarity bias. We have a natural tendency to assume that disastrous outcomes are caused by equally monstrous blunders. In reality, of course, the magnitude of the disaster is determined more by situational factors than by the extent of the errors. Many bad accidents rise from a concatenation of relatively minor failings in different parts of the SYSTEM.
Finally, it cannot be denied that there is a great deal of emotional satisfaction to be gained from having someone (rather than something) to blame when things go badly wrong. Few of us are able to resist the pleasures of venting our psychic spleens on some convenient scapegoat. And in the case of organizations, of course, there is considerable financial advantage in being able to detach individual fallibility from corporate responsibility."
Basically what Ace is correctly stating is that "human error does not take place in a vacuum, but within the context of organizations which either resist or foster it."