Lessons from the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster. Recent data (2024) on leadership and organizational culture juxtaposed with tragic events (2003).

When I attended a class at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on building organizational resilience, one of the topics covered was an analysis of the Columbia space shuttle disaster, which ended in the tragic deaths of seven astronauts.

The classes at MIT and the analysis of the disaster taught me with very valuable lessons about managing complexity and crisis in organizations. I learned a lot from them, and I continue to try to apply the practices presented in my daily work.

So I was particularly pleased when, a year later, in September 2024, I happened to come across a newly released 72nd episode of the HBR On Leadership podcast, which covered the same topics. In it, I found an additional, equally interesting analysis of the tragedy, this time focused primarily on the role of leadership.

I was so inspired that I decided to search for the latest data and reports on the role of leaders in organizations that same day. I wanted to compare it with material from MIT and HBR. I wanted to see how leaders and the culture of their organizations compared to what NASA faced more than 20 years ago. This led to an analysis based on data from the reports, which I invite you to read.

Columbia disaster – a brief description of the cause of the disaster

On February 1, 2003, after 16 days in space, the seven-member crew of the shuttle Columbia prepared to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere. The process, overseen by Commander Rick Husband and Pilot William McCool, was going according to plan until temperature sensors on the shuttle’s left wing began to show irregularities. Communication with Columbia was lost at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), and minutes later the shuttle disintegrated in the atmosphere over Texas.

The cause of the crash, as determined by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), was a hole in the shuttle’s left wing caused by the impact of a piece of foam insulation from the external fuel tank. The situation occurred during launch. During re-entry into the atmosphere, hot gases entered through the resulting gap and destroyed the internal structure of the wing. This led to its destruction and the disintegration of the entire shuttle.

At first, it may have seemed that this was an unfortunate accident caused only by a malfunction. After all, we are all exposed to various dangers on a daily basis, and many things cannot be predicted. However, the CAIB report indicated that there were not only technical reasons for the crash, but also organizational and cultural problems at NASA that may have contributed to the disaster.

The investigation found that managers had been repeatedly informed over the years of irregularities on other space shuttle missions, including the previously mentioned problem with a piece of foam falling off. Despite this, no action was taken and the problems were gradually treated as “acceptable risks” rather than being resolved. It was felt that since something had happened so many times and had not caused a major failure, there was no need to worry about it.

Unfortunately, what I read in reports about today’s organizations reflects a similar mechanism. Employees can report problems, but without a response from management, their words quickly lose their meaning. How big is the problem?

The Global Culture Report 2024 prepared by the O.C. Tanner Institute shows that only 40% of employees say they see real changes being made based on their feedback and opinions.

In the case of Columbia, as in other missions, the situation repeated itself. After liftoff, NASA engineers noticed that a piece of insulation had come loose and this time hit the shuttle. Some of them expressed serious concerns about possible damage, but as before, their voices were not taken seriously.

The organization’s culture as a necessary element for the company to function

The Columbia disaster was not only a technical failure, but more importantly, an organizational failure. Although NASA had a history of innovation and the ability to successfully solve problems, over time its culture began to slowly but cyclically change for the worse.

Unfortunately, many companies today still don’t understand how important a healthy culture is to their operations and that it must be continually nurtured.

Research shows that only 56% of employees in Europe believe that their organization cares about them.

This is an alarmingly low rate, indicating a lack of empathy and concern for the well-being of teams.

Where do these numbers come from?

Most often, the task of building an organization’s culture is placed in the hands of its leaders. However, it is worth remembering that not every leader has natural leadership skills, which directly affects the quality of their actions.

As Gallup data shows, only 10% of people have a natural talent for managing others, which allows them to effectively engage team members, increase retention and boost productivity with relative ease.

That’s why a leader, like everyone else in the organization, needs regular development, mentoring programs and training to increase their competence. At Inwedo, one of our values is continuous development and improvement. We constantly develop our skills and deepen our knowledge. This allows us to enjoy our work and the solutions we provide, to increase safety, and to give our customers the opportunity to enjoy the highest level of service. The personal development of both teams and leaders is a key part of our collective success. This approach is shared by many other organizations.

Data from Leadership Development: Meeting the Transformation Imperative, shows that organizations that make the development of their leaders a key part of their strategy have a 66% better market position than their competitors.

In the space shuttle program, we were dealing with leaders who were not “chosen. The overconfidence, authoritarianism, and need for recognition of these leaders replaced the spirit of cooperation and openness that had previously been the foundation of the organization’s success.

This erosion of organizational culture had tragic consequences, creating an environment in which leaders made effective risk management impossible. Even when employees identified potential risks, they were ignored and, over time, discouraged from voicing their concerns.

According to the McKinsey on Risk & Resilience 2024 report, leaders should be responsible for engaging risk teams early and ensuring that employees have the right tools and incentives to report potential risks before they materialize.

Similar challenges in managing risk and uncertainty faced by NASA continue to worry today’s organizations.

As the “Ready for Anything” report shows, up to 74% of leaders rate the ability to accept risk and make decisions in dynamic situations as one of the most important leadership competencies in today’s business world.

The report also shows that the ability to work in an environment of uncertainty and chaotic change, once a requirement for top executives, is now becoming a requirement for leaders at all levels of the organization.

Leadership is about listening to others

During a class at MIT, I had the opportunity to participate in a conversation with members of my working group. There were several people of different nationalities. Each of them represented a different industry and had a unique experience in managing organizations. Since we didn’t know each other, and cultural differences meant that talking about loose topics didn’t go over well, the conversation quickly turned to business topics, or more specifically, leadership in the broadest sense. It turned out that regardless of geographic location, the trainees had similar experiences. Their opinions were clear – people in leadership positions often don’t pay attention to warning signals and try to ignore the reality around them.

• “This is the way it has always been”.
• “We acted this way for years.”
• “We didn’t treat it as a risk.”
• or “Dealing with this topic in our view did not bring value to the company.”

These were the most common arguments that caused great frustration to those who shared their thoughts.

Thinking back to that conversation, I decided to research the current state of speaking up in the workplace. I found the answer in the publication 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust at Work.

It turns out that as many as 87% of employees expect to be able to freely express their opinions, even if they differ from those of their superiors. In addition, 89% want to provide feedback to their management.

Being heard is a very important part of working together and building mutual relationships. There is no doubt about that. Relationships, in turn, are one of the most powerful tools for building trust between leaders and teams. At NASA, the structure was very hierarchical and they were completely overlooked. That’s why I decided to look at the data on trust in today’s business world and delved into the Global Leadership Forecast 2023 study.

It turns out that only 46% of employees trust their superiors to do the right thing, and the percentage drops to 32% for senior leaders.

The inability to express one’s opinions, and the lack of trust that leaders, informed of potential problems, will take appropriate action or help take care of the issue, can lead to serious consequences. This is perfectly illustrated by the example of NASA.

Another important piece of data is worth noting. The AuditBoard 2023 report emphasizes that low transparency of operations and lack of accountability of leaders lead to cultural risks.

68% of internal audit leaders consider leaders who do not live by the values as a key indicator of cultural problems. Such situations can discourage employees from reporting risks, leading to serious problems.

Personally, in my day-to-day work, I strive for open and honest communication within the company and with our customers. As an organization, we strive to talk directly about problems and find solutions together. We trust each other. We build long-term relationships and regularly ask for feedback: from customers and from ourselves.

With this approach, we open the way to respect the status quo and look for better solutions. This, in turn, has a direct impact on our security and that of our customers. Organizations that strive to be super-modern are encouraged to follow a similar path.

A modern leader relies on building relationships from which trust is born

It is worth emphasizing that leaders will not be able to build trust with their team members unless they first build good relationships with them. In one of my articles, “7 Smart Goals You Can Set in Your Organization,” I covered this topic in some depth. However, I decided to update my current knowledge on the subject.

According to a recent study published in the Harvard Business Review, people in high-trust companies report 74% less stress, 106% more energy at work, 50% higher productivity, 13% fewer sick days, 76% higher engagement, 29% higher life satisfaction and 40% less job burnout than people in low-trust companies.

If you don’t know how to build trust, a good place to start is by being fully present and focused in meetings. It’s a good idea to look at the other person, listen to them, analyze what they have to say. If necessary, it is good to try to help and, above all, not to judge or jump to conclusions. It is also a good idea to maintain a friendly atmosphere for cooperation.

According to Deloitte’s 2024 Global Human Capital Trends report, 86% of 14,000 leaders recognize the link between transparency from management and employee trust.

In addition, being able to come to the company with their problems and stresses to be noticed, valued, or understood at work (rather than another source of problems) is one of the most important motivators for growth.

It’s also a good idea to provide opportunities for teams to build relationships with each other, such as team-building meetings or a dedicated space. Let’s make sure the organization remembers birthdays, anniversaries, and important events. Let’s take care of our employees’ health – all kinds of health-oriented campaigns, medical packages, and other forms of encouraging people to be physically active can help.

If you think you have fully mastered the issues of trust in our organizations, it is worth looking at the PwC Trust Survey 2024 report before making such a statement. It shows that leaders very often overestimate the level of trust in their organizations.

86% of managers say they have a high level of trust in their employees, but only 60% of employees feel highly trusted.

Relationships not only increase team engagement, but also make it easier for them to openly share opinions and thoughts that can improve the entire organization. If you are planning to make changes, ask people what they think and let them know as early as possible. Knowing that you are an integral part of the organization and that everyone’s opinion is important and will be taken into account is essential to building positive morale.

24% of executives rank a lack of clear accountability for trust – that is, a situation in which no leader feels directly responsible for building trust in the organization – as one of their top three challenges. This represents an increase of 10 percentage points compared to 2023.

Trust is important not only for good collaboration, but also for employee engagement and loyalty. What’s more, when there is a lack of trust between leaders and teams, the quality of service throughout the organization suffers.

42% of executives cite productivity as the biggest risk if employees do not trust their employer, along with product and service quality (41%), operational efficiency (40%) and – again – profitability (38%).

Leadership against the backdrop of empathy and psychological safety

In the context of the Columbia disaster, we can see how a lack of openness to critical employee voices may have contributed to the tragedy. To avoid such mistakes, today’s organizations should not only listen and respond to team members’ concerns, but also improve their processes, build trust, and rely on empathy in the broadest sense.

However, empathy is not the first word that comes to mind when you think about modern organizations, especially now that the world is moving so fast.

For some leaders, empathy can be uncomfortable because it involves genuine concern for others. But in essence, empathy is the ability to understand another person’s situation and take their perspective.

The results of a study published in the Harvard Business Publishing article“Empathetic Leadership” show that while as many as 78% of leaders believe that showing empathy is an important part of their role, only 47% say that their organization’s culture actually supports it.

In contrast, another study by the Arbinger Institute shows that as many as 92% of CEOs say their organization is empathetic. But interestingly, only 50% of employees say their CEO has this trait.

Why such differences? If leaders know the importance of empathy, why do their organizations ultimately fail to foster it? Why do CEOs think they are empathetic, while employees think otherwise?

Another study, Businessolver 2024, may help us answer these questions, in which CEOs admit they face challenges in showing empathy.

65% of leaders say they feel intimidated by their colleagues because of empathy. 72% say their decisions are questioned when they use empathy, and 69% say being empathetic makes them look weak.

– “But are they right to think so? Will they actually be perceived poorly by their subordinates?” – I asked the questions in my mind and remembered that the answer can be found in the aforementioned Global Leadership Forecast 2023 report.

It turns out that leaders who regularly show weakness are 5.3 times more likely to build trust among their employees, and leaders who admit their shortcomings are 7.5 times more likely to maintain trust.

The upshot is that being empathetic and showing your true colors can be mutually beneficial.

Another important lesson for leaders to learn from the Columbia disaster is the importance of psychological safety. This means creating an environment where team members can openly express concerns, ask questions, and challenge the status quo without fear of negative consequences.

The Businessolver 2024 empathy survey found that for almost 90% of employees, HR departments and CEOs, it is important for senior management to openly discuss mental health issues in order to create a safe environment for other employees.

Summary

The MIT class I mentioned in the beginning was online. I still remember sitting in my office, surrounded by the materials we received before the class and the notes I took based on them. Although it was the middle of the day, I was already feeling a slight drop in energy, so I brewed myself a cup of strong coffee. It turned out to be completely unnecessary, because when the professor began to talk about the Columbia disaster, my concentration reached its peak, and his words drew me in as if I were watching the dramatic events live.

As I researched the details of the tragedy and gathered data for this article, I realized that the Columbia disaster was not just a story about technical failures, but more importantly about human decision-making, communication, and organizational culture. These elements were critical to the course of events, and their absence or erosion can lead to similar situations in any organization.

Leadership is not only the ability to make decisions, but also the ability to listen to the voices of one’s teams and build relationships based on trust. Empathic leadership creates a space where each team member feels valued and important. In the face of today’s business challenges, leaders must recognize that their success depends not only on making tough decisions, but more importantly, on their ability to be close to people – and responsive to their needs.