I find this phenomenon so difficult to understand.
I find this phenomenon so difficult to understand.
It’s sad, but the natural tendency of organizations is to close ranks in situations like this. It is incredibly tough to perform an open, honest, self-assessment. The procedures need to be in place to force the self-examination and strong leaders need to push for it. Even then, politics sometimes place the blame on the wrong people. I’ve seen this happen time and time again in the military from working with SF in Iraq [1] to joining a squadron just after a disaster [2].
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/africa/20iht-20iraq....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_San_Diego_F/A-18_crash
Since "everyone else" > "you", majority rules, you go.
It's a bureaucracy problem. I've seen it, and it's also gotten me at least once, when I decided to stick up for principles. My ego left intact, my job did not.
This is also why getting fired should not automatically carry a negative stigma.
I have a counterpoint- I bet that, given any risky endeavour, there are ALWAYS some naysayers/doubters. So the probability that someone at an organization ends up being correct when a disaster occurs, is probably fairly high. Thus, just because you won the disaster prediction lottery, may not entitle you to as much acclaim as you might think.
Conversely, achieving success despite taking a great number of risks in the process, may not entitle you to the acclaim that you do get.
But one guy tells the world exactly how you screwed up. Now you're in fear of your reputation and job -- but if he'd just kept his mouth shut, then you might be okay.
In particular his material on bureaucracies is relevant: when threatened, bureaucracies immediately fight for self-preservation. Boisjoly was threatening the bureaucracy and so had to be eliminated for it to survive. Its actions makes perfect sense in the light of this. Ugly, yes but understandable.