By: chris Brown
Mass atrocities have been described as a particular kind of evil. They are said to be among the cruelest behaviors conducted by human beings. According to American psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, Philip Zimbardo, Evil is said to be the exercise of power to intentionally harm people psychologically, hurt people physically, or destroy people mortally and commit crimes against humanity. Yet some mass atrocities are caused by well-intentioned individuals. So how can well-intentioned people be guilty of doing evil?
Overview
Research has shown that where a toxic triangle of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments exists, evil results can happen even if unintentional. The Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI) faced much disdain due to instances that took place within the pediatric cardiology unit. The became known as the Bristol heart scandal. Other names given to the BRI pediatric cardiology unit are the killing field and the departure lounge.
Destructive Leaders
Destructive leadership involves control and coercion, has a selfish orientation, a willingness to compromise the quality of life of others, and are dependent on susceptible followers and conducive environments (Padilla, 2007). Destructive leadership can include unintentional acts. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, insensitivity, or incompetence can be just as destructive as intentionally reckless behaviors (Padilla, 2007; Thoroughgood, 2012).
Doctor John Roylance was Bristol’s medical director. He maintained a laissez-faire leadership style in that that he wanted BRI to be led by self-managing doctors who were self-teaching and self-correcting. The therefore allowed the doctors to manage themselves with no oversight. A leadership type that helps to provide an environment for destruction (Padilla, 2007).
Doctor James Wisheart was chief of surgery of BRI’s paediatric cardiology unit. Stated the babies who died suffered from serious conditions with additional complications, so a high death rate was expected. He was described as arrogant and callous while also dedicated and skilled. However, in the end he had begun to pursue an idealized goal of making a name for himself in cardiac surgery which made him willing to compromise the quality of life of his patients and their families (Padilla, 2007).
Susceptible Followers
The susceptible followers are those who offer unspoken support or serve as wordless bystanders who allow the mass atrocities to occur. Conformers passively allow bad leaders to assume power because their unmet needs and immaturity make them vulnerable to such influences. Colluders support destructive leaders because they want to promote themselves within an environment consistent with their world views (Padilla, 2007).
The families of the BRI children were not provided accurate explanations after their children died or suffered brain damage. Their silence was obtained through manipulation on behalf of the institution. They trusted the doctors and the institution. They took on the role of conformers (Padilla, 2007). Whether manipulated or not, these uninformed family members played a part in the adverse outcome.
Overview
Research has shown that where a toxic triangle of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments exists, evil results can happen even if unintentional. The Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI) faced much disdain due to instances that took place within the pediatric cardiology unit. The became known as the Bristol heart scandal. Other names given to the BRI pediatric cardiology unit are the killing field and the departure lounge.
Destructive Leaders
Destructive leadership involves control and coercion, has a selfish orientation, a willingness to compromise the quality of life of others, and are dependent on susceptible followers and conducive environments (Padilla, 2007). Destructive leadership can include unintentional acts. Thoughtlessness, ignorance, insensitivity, or incompetence can be just as destructive as intentionally reckless behaviors (Padilla, 2007; Thoroughgood, 2012).
Doctor John Roylance was Bristol’s medical director. He maintained a laissez-faire leadership style in that that he wanted BRI to be led by self-managing doctors who were self-teaching and self-correcting. The therefore allowed the doctors to manage themselves with no oversight. A leadership type that helps to provide an environment for destruction (Padilla, 2007).
Doctor James Wisheart was chief of surgery of BRI’s paediatric cardiology unit. Stated the babies who died suffered from serious conditions with additional complications, so a high death rate was expected. He was described as arrogant and callous while also dedicated and skilled. However, in the end he had begun to pursue an idealized goal of making a name for himself in cardiac surgery which made him willing to compromise the quality of life of his patients and their families (Padilla, 2007).
Susceptible Followers
The susceptible followers are those who offer unspoken support or serve as wordless bystanders who allow the mass atrocities to occur. Conformers passively allow bad leaders to assume power because their unmet needs and immaturity make them vulnerable to such influences. Colluders support destructive leaders because they want to promote themselves within an environment consistent with their world views (Padilla, 2007).
The families of the BRI children were not provided accurate explanations after their children died or suffered brain damage. Their silence was obtained through manipulation on behalf of the institution. They trusted the doctors and the institution. They took on the role of conformers (Padilla, 2007). Whether manipulated or not, these uninformed family members played a part in the adverse outcome.
Doctor Janardhan Dhasmana, heart surgeon at BRI paediatric cardiology unit, fits within the category of a susceptible follower because he took on the role of a colluder (Thoroughgood, 2012). He offered unspoken support to the head of surgery while fully aware of the high mortality rate of the heart surgeries being performed. Being within the ‘old boy’ circle was important to him. He understood his silence was the price of admission. He was seeking status, excitement and personal fulfilment which are characteristics of a colluder (Kraft, 2015).
Conducive Environment
Effective institutions, system stability, and proper checks and balances, along with strong followers, would not have allowed destructive leadership to prevail (Padilla, 2007). However, serious, systemic failures were found at BRI. Particularly within the paediatric heart unit that had clothed itself in an old boy’s culture of wilful blindness to safety concerns. The medical director, Doctor Roylance, implemented no checks and balances among the doctors. Doctors were allowed their own oversight. This soon developed into an old boy’s culture among the doctors which had created a secrecy about the doctors’ poor performance (Kennedy, 2001; Padilla, 2007; Thoroughgood, 2012).
At Bristol, parents were given surgical outcome predictions, figures for survival rates and surgical risk, which reflected national averages but which the administration and surgeons clearly knew to be inaccurate for their own unit at Bristol. These parents faced uncertainty as to what should be done to save the lives of their children. So, they looked to the doctors to provide leadership, guidance, and hope (Thoroughgood, 2012). They, therefore, passively allowed the doctors to assume power over their situation which made them vulnerable to the doctor’s influences (Vollhardt, 2016).
The Whistleblower
Other researchers have placed Doctor Steve Bolsin among the destructive leaders based on the statement that his idealized goal was to be perceived as child savior. I disagree. The Bristol Whistleblower, was aware of the culture that had developed at BRI and would not directly address the head of surgery for fear of losing access to data needed to build his case. He, therefore, had to conduct secret research to build his case while children continued to die. His intention was always to tell the story of the senseless dying of the children. Despite the consequences, he pursued to do what was right. He did so fully prepared to be attacked, personally, professionally and legally.
The whistle-blower brought out the ugly of BRI for all to see and an investigation was started. The parents who were among the BRI susceptible followers, became vocal in condemning the institution and doctors to whom they had previously placed in a position of power. Suddenly, two parts of the toxic triangle - susceptible followers and conducive environment - that had allowed for destructive leadership to thrive had crumbled and laid bare the human atrocities for all to see. Three doctors, who were described as caring had come into their profession with every intention of doing good for humankind. Then they found themselves in a toxic triangle that allowed evil to be done to the most innocent of humans – infants and children.
Effective institutions, system stability, and proper checks and balances, along with strong followers, would not have allowed destructive leadership to prevail (Padilla, 2007). However, serious, systemic failures were found at BRI. Particularly within the paediatric heart unit that had clothed itself in an old boy’s culture of wilful blindness to safety concerns. The medical director, Doctor Roylance, implemented no checks and balances among the doctors. Doctors were allowed their own oversight. This soon developed into an old boy’s culture among the doctors which had created a secrecy about the doctors’ poor performance (Kennedy, 2001; Padilla, 2007; Thoroughgood, 2012).
At Bristol, parents were given surgical outcome predictions, figures for survival rates and surgical risk, which reflected national averages but which the administration and surgeons clearly knew to be inaccurate for their own unit at Bristol. These parents faced uncertainty as to what should be done to save the lives of their children. So, they looked to the doctors to provide leadership, guidance, and hope (Thoroughgood, 2012). They, therefore, passively allowed the doctors to assume power over their situation which made them vulnerable to the doctor’s influences (Vollhardt, 2016).
The Whistleblower
Other researchers have placed Doctor Steve Bolsin among the destructive leaders based on the statement that his idealized goal was to be perceived as child savior. I disagree. The Bristol Whistleblower, was aware of the culture that had developed at BRI and would not directly address the head of surgery for fear of losing access to data needed to build his case. He, therefore, had to conduct secret research to build his case while children continued to die. His intention was always to tell the story of the senseless dying of the children. Despite the consequences, he pursued to do what was right. He did so fully prepared to be attacked, personally, professionally and legally.
The whistle-blower brought out the ugly of BRI for all to see and an investigation was started. The parents who were among the BRI susceptible followers, became vocal in condemning the institution and doctors to whom they had previously placed in a position of power. Suddenly, two parts of the toxic triangle - susceptible followers and conducive environment - that had allowed for destructive leadership to thrive had crumbled and laid bare the human atrocities for all to see. Three doctors, who were described as caring had come into their profession with every intention of doing good for humankind. Then they found themselves in a toxic triangle that allowed evil to be done to the most innocent of humans – infants and children.
References
- Bristol Royal Infirmary. (2018). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Royal_Infirmary
- Bristol heart scandal. (2001). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Royal_Infirmary#Bristol_heart_scandal
- Fraher, A. L. (2016). A toxic triangle of destructive leadership at Bristol Royal Infirmary: A study of organizational Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Leadership, 12(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715014544392
- Kennedy, I. (2001) Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into Children’s Heart Surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995. London: Crown. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090811143822/http:/www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/the_report.pdf
- Kraft, R. N. (2015). The good intentions of violent perpetrators: A qualitative analysis of testimony from South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. Peace and Conflict, 21(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000079
- Padilla A, Hogan R and Kaiser RB (2007) The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly 18: 176–194.
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984307000367
- The Bristol heart babies. (2001). BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/background_briefings/the_bristol_heart_babies/default.stm
- Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.007
- Vollhardt, J. R., & Campbell-Obaid, M. (2016). The social psychology of genocide and mass atrocities. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (2nd ed., pp. 159-184).
- ,https://www.academia.edu/20269887/The_social_psychology_of_genocide_and_mass_atrocities