March 13, 1964. This was the tragic night Kitty Genovese died.
Her screams were heard by more than 10 witnesses who remained safely locked up in their apartments during the attack. As she cried for help, one of the witnesses shouted out through a window for the attacker to leave her alone. The attacker panicked and ran away.
Kitty staggered into her apartment’s building. But the attacker soon returned and found her lying in the building’s hallway. He raped and beat her up. Eventually, one of the witnesses called the police who rushed her to hospital. Unfortunately, she died on the way.
This phenomenon is known as the diffusion of responsibility or the by-stander effect.
It occurs in situations where there are many people present but without clearly defined roles and responsibilities. It is considered a type of attribution where each person thinks someone else will take action, but no one does. And sadly, the more witnesses there are, the higher the likelihood that no one will take any action. What is interesting, however, is that when there is only one witness, the probability of them taking action is very high because there is a heightened sense of personal responsibility.
This week, the nation is collectively angry at the needless tragic drowning of a mother and her daughter in the Indian Ocean. The two were in their car aboard the MV Harambee ferry crossing the Likoni Channel. Reports indicate the car slid off the ferry midstream on the 500 meters stretch.
Kenyans have pilloried the agonizingly slow pace of retrieving the bodies. And in response, the state, through its spokesman, Col. (Rtd) Cyrus Oguna, has explained that the delay was occasioned by poor weather, strong undercurrents, heavy commuter traffic into the Mombasa island, and the sui generis location of the channel, which makes it the only gateway into the Mombasa port.
Diffusion of responsibility also occurs at institutional level and work teams when roles and responsibilities are poorly, or not defined, and are uncoordinated. It is a cognitive influence that affects how people work, make decisions and respond.
Responsibility for this ferry tragedy has been directed at several institutions by MPs and the general populace. They have called for those in charge to be held personally liable. They have castigated the Kenya Ferry Services for not having skilled divers and specialised equipment to handle marine disasters; criticised Mombasa Governor Hassan Joho, for not speaking up soon enough; the Kenya Coast Guard director, for failing to undertake search and rescue operations; and even the victims for not disembarking from the car once it was on board the ferry.
Fingers have also been pointed at the Kenya Navy for not responding to the distress calls despite their close proximity and capacity to retrieve the bodies and wreckage. However, it has been reported that KFS was slow in contacting the navy and that proper communication channels were disregarded when they finally did. The law requires that for any military personnel to be deployed to aid civil authorities during emergencies and disasters, there must be a prior approval granted from the Chief of Defence Forces.
DEONTOLOGY
The situation the Kenya Navy found itself in is an ethical dilemma called deontology. Deontology requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because one only has to follow a set of rules.
For example, if you are software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile that might start a war is about to be launched, you could take it upon yourself to hack the network and terminate the launch. However, this would be going against your professional code of ethics that restrains you from breaking into other people’s systems without permission. Deontology requires you do not violate this rule. But, if you let the missile launch, thousands of people will die.
Begs the question, are we blaming the Kenya Navy out of our ignorance of the law, and their military obligation for deontology?
The blame game we have concerned ourselves with is an exercise in futility because there are no winners in blame games. They only give us instant gratification because we think we are getting justice, or getting even. However, this is a fallacy because the damage has already been done.
In economic-speak, this is known as a sunk cost. A sunk cost refers to resources that have already been expended, and which cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are, therefore, excluded from future decisions because the cost will remain the same regardless of the outcome of any decision or action.
Therefore, to avoid future disasters, we should instead redirect our energies and interrogate why things fail or disasters occur.
I submit that needless disasters happen way before we see them; and what we witness is just an inevitable manifestation of something that started prior to the occurrence of the tragedy.
In the case of the tragic ferry calamity, it is evident that disparate events aligned and culminated in this calamity as follows: KFS, despite having full knowledge of the depth of the channel, was not adequately and appropriately equipped to respond; the Kenya Coast Guard, despite its mandate to enforce maritime safety and security, failed to execute its functions with timeliness and precision; the ferry passengers, despite numerous warnings and awareness creation to disembark from their vehicles once onboard, failed to alight as advised.
The sad reality is that our education system and socialisation indoctrinates us for success. It does not prepare us for failure. Hence when we are confronted by an unexpected disaster or negative turn of events, a paralysis inundates us; and it is this split second between bystander effect and action that could make the difference between fatality and survival.
At a personal and institutional level, we should continuously identify risks to uncover things that could adversely affect our success; analyze them to deduce their likelihood of occurrence and consequences; plan for them to execute appropriate actions should they occur, and manage them by instituting mitigating or preventive measures.
Finally, my unsolicited advice to the indignant MPs is that a better driver cannot fix a broken car. Likewise, firing and replacing those that you deem culpable of this disaster will not prevent future calamities. Rather, fix and enforce the system.
My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure. —Abraham Lincoln
