Do you think this means:
a) Change the environment that fosters those kinds of messages?
-or-
b) Punish those who wrote those messages?
Do you think this means:
a) Change the environment that fosters those kinds of messages?
-or-
b) Punish those who wrote those messages?
They're not saying that releasing a plane that employees were sounding safety alarms are about is bad.
> [Sounding safety alarms is] inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate [ie punitive] action in response [to prevent any alarms on the next unsafe design].
However we are in agreement that this isn't a commitment to fix any of underlying issues that caused this mess.
While that's on the low end of the range of severity I'd expect, I can't help but point out that that is, in fact, punitive action and would, in fact, discourage (albeit probably not prevent) any warnings about the next unsafe design.
If people were joking around and using hyperbole to exaggerate the extent of what they saw as problems, and did this often-- as some engineering cultures do-- a slap on the wrist is justified. That kind of banter creates noise that obscures real concerns about lack of safety.
If they were genuinely concerned and are smacked for creating documentation of it, that is super bad.
Bring back the concept of responsibility. They are paid to be in overall responsibility for anything that happens under their remit.
Time was such a behaviour in the department, or under their leadership would have ended a career. Realising the actions of a lowly engineer or janitor can end their gravy train, they might implement adequate oversight.
With adequate penalty and frequent enforcement, usual behaviour would change...