The human instinct to cover up when being accused of wrongdoings could have led to Boeing's decision to defend the safety of its 737 MAX aircraft rather than recommending a swift ban globally following recent deadly crashes involving this model of airplane, which sparked further scrutiny from the general public, experts told Sputnik
MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 19th March, 2019) The human instinct to cover up when being accused of wrongdoings could have led to Boeing's decision to defend the safety of its 737 MAX aircraft rather than recommending a swift ban globally following recent deadly crashes involving this model of airplane, which sparked further scrutiny from the general public, experts told Sputnik.After the Boeing 737 MAX operated by Ethiopian Airlines crashed and killed everyone on board on March 10, marking the second deadly crash involving the popular aircraft in less than give months, the US plane maker expressed strong confidence in the safety of its hot selling aircraft for three days.
During the same period, aviation authorities around the world, including those in China, Ethiopia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and the European Union, began to ground the Boeing 737 MAX completely, leaving the United States as one of the last countries to ban the aircraft following the recent deadly accident.
"Safety is Boeing's number one priority and we have full confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX. We understand that regulatory agencies and customers have made decisions that they believe are most appropriate for their home markets. We'll continue to engage with them to ensure they have the information needed to have confidence in operating their fleets. The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is not mandating any further action at this time, and based on the information currently available, we do not have any basis to issue new guidance to operators," Boeing said in a statement on March 12.
Eventually, the FAA decided to ground the 737 MAX in the United States on March 13, citing new evidence collected at the site of the recent crash.
"The FAA is ordering the temporary grounding of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operated by U.S. airlines or in U.S. territory. The agency made this decision as a result of the data gathering process and new evidence collected at the site and analyzed today. This evidence, together with newly refined satellite data available to FAA this morning, led to this decision," the FAA said in a statement.
In a subsequent statement, Boeing said it recommended the FAA to temporary suspend the entire global fleet of 737 MAX aircraft and supported "this proactive step out of an abundance of caution."
Prior to the FAA's decision to ground 737 MAX aircraft in the United States, panicked US customers flooded major US airlines such as Southwest Airlines with inquired to try to avoid flying in the airplane in question.
Regardless of whether the Boeing 737 MAX indeed has mechanical issues that could have played a role in the recent deadly crashes, Boeing seems to have lost the battle of public opinion regarding to the safety of its flagship aircraft.
Crisis management experts suggested that Boeing's reluctance to address potential issues with the 737 MAX could have originated from the human instinct of responding defensively when being accused of wrongdoings.
"Companies are defensive in crises for the same reason why human beings are instinctively defensive. It's human nature to cover up when accused. This goes back to the Bible. What did Adam and Eve do when they were caught eating the apple? They covered themselves up. Another reason why companies are defensive is that it's very costly to investigate and fix problems. Denial is often the more economic option however distasteful. Also, plenty of efforts to knock down allegations work. The cell phone industry has been knocking down rumors about radiation for twenty five years and it has worked brilliantly to date. This isn't a justification, but an analysis," Eric Dezenhall, CEO of Washington-based crisis consulting firm Dezenhall Resources, told Sputnik.
The expert explained that Boeing appears to have opted to communicate with its Primary customers, which are global airlines and governments, directly, instead of addressing concerns from the general public.
"Boeing's primary audiences are the airlines -- its customers -- and the governments that regulate them. Engineering companies don't do very well trying to explain things to the public. They are not going to be very successful trying to explain aviation software and its impact on pitch, yaw and roll to seven billion people. They will have a better chance at instilling confidence by persuading the airlines and government that the equipment works. Boeing surely knows that its ability to persuade billions of people of anything is limited which is why they are doing triage -- focusing on what's most important," he said.
The expert believes Boeing has miscalculated its communications strategy following the most recent deadly crash.
"At some level, companies know in crises involving mass panic, the fight is over before it begins so they take the risk of communicating less not more. In many cases this works just fine. In this case it didn't. Boeing presumably made the calculation that 1) the cause of these accidents was not mechanical and 2) they could address it best by communicating with airlines and governments, which they probably did very quickly contrary to the notion that they did nothing which I don't believe. This calculation didn't work but we don't yet know why," he said.
In the social media age today, the general public has grown used to receiving instant and spontaneous responses from companies and governments, when major accidents like the tragic crash of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft take place.
After the Boeing 737 MAX from Ethiopian Airlines went down, governments, aviation agencies and airlines globally have all used various social media platforms to offer the families of the victims and the general public timely information regarding to the crash and the safety of the aircraft involved.
Public relations experts pointed out that the instant and timely updates on social media platforms have also raised expectations from the general public on companies like Boeing, when major accidents take place.
"Because of the world we now live in, there is this expectation from the general public that information and answers will be available immediately. In cases like this [the recent place crash], they just are not. I feel some sympathy for Boeing, because they do have to wait until the investigators have done their work. It is a real challenge. It's a challenge for every company, every brand and for every type of business. When something goes wrong like this, how do you satisfy this demand for instant gratification and instant information? When you actually don't have the information that people want, it's very difficult. There's no easy answer to it," John Bailey, managing consultant at the Switzerland-based consulting firm Global Communications Consulting, told Sputnik.
The expert stressed that Boeing is very limited in what they can disclose about the recent plane crash, because Ethiopian aviation authorities are leading the investigation as dictated by international treaties on aviation accident investigations.
"Boeing is very limited in what they can actually say, because it is only part of the investigation. They're saying what they can say. Of course, it's not going to satisfy everybody. In this case, they have to go with what they can do. This is standard practice under International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13, the international treaty which stipulates how accident investigations will be conducted. As such, Boeing is limited in what it can say about the accident and the implications for the aircraft type. All information about the investigation findings and any safety recommendations will come from the accident investigating body in Ethiopia," he said.
Dezenhall, the Washington-based consultant, argued that social media could cause more harm than reassurances for companies Boeing during crisis like the recent aviation accident.
"I have been saying for years that social media is the problem in crisis management not the solution. It is simply not made for reassurance. It is a mechanism of panic not reason. Simply because social media is omnipresent it doesn't mean it can be harnessed for certain types of crisis management. Boring surely knows this which is why they focused on airlines and governments," he said.
Taking a proactive approach, such as recalling possible problematic products, may not always be the most effective and feasible strategy for companies like Boeing, when their products have potential flaws, Dezenhall suggested.
"Was their decision not to ground the planes immediately right or wrong? I just don't know. There's a myth that immediately recalling products is always the right move but if that were the case companies would be doing nothing but shutting down operations all day long and I don't know enough about the science here to say for sure. Certainly, if Boeing knew that both accidents were likely caused by the same phenomenon it would have been wise to ground the aircraft but, again, we don't know if that's what they knew. In fact, they may have access to a very different fact pattern which was the basis for making their initial judgment call," he said.
The expert pointed out that the aviation industry could be more vulnerable than other industries, because any potential problems with their products could have lethal consequences.
"They are more vulnerable because of the catastrophic nature of the problem. Plane crashes are terrifying and the consequences are lethal. This is very different from, say, taking a drug that may have an annoying but not lethal side-effect," he said.
Nevertheless, the expert added that the aviation industry is also less vulnerable because of their monopoly position in offering long distance transportation, as travelers will struggle to find a more convenient option to go from Baltimore to San Diego.
