Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What were some of the reasons behind the challenger disaster
Challenger disaster cause
Contemporary issues in health and safety in organizations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On an unusually cool Florida morning in January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 50,000 feet above ground just moments after liftoff killing seven crew members onboard (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). A presidential commission, dubbed “the Rogers Commission” (hereafter, the Commission) after former Secretary of State William Rogers, was appointed to investigate the cause of the disaster. Although mechanical failure of an O-ring seal in one of the rocket boosters was identified as the physical cause, the investigation revealed something much more disheartening; organizational deficiencies at NASA had allowed potential safety hazards to be disregarded. The disastrous consequences of NASA’s organizational failure prompted calls for the organization to restructure its management to provide for better control and appoint a team dedicated to identifying and tracking potential shuttle safety hazards as well as redesigning the faulty booster joint for NASA approval. Shortly before the two year anniversary of the disaster, NASA officials declared that the Commission’s recommendations for organizational change had been successfully implemented. Unfortunately, the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia nearly three decades later and a subsequent investigation revealed that the changes made in the wake of the Challenger disaster had not endured. Factors such leaders’ perception of the change process, the type of change being implemented, organizational vision, resistance to change and other challenges all play a role in how change initiatives unfold (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). NASA’s narrative is a testament to the complexities and challenges of not only implementing, but also sustaining organizational change. Palmer a... ... middle of paper ... ...vestigation/CAIB_lowres_full.pdf Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73, 59–67. Kumar, S. (2012). Challenges of managing an organizational change. Advances in Management, 5(4), 13-15. Mariana, P., Daniela, B., & Nadina, R. (2013). Forces that enhance or reduce employee resistance to change. Annals of The University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 22(1), 1606-1612. Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (2008). Organizational change and the importance of embedded assumptions. British Journal of Management, 19S20-S32. Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Scott, K., Heathcote, J., & Gruman, J. (2011). The diverse organization: Finding gold at the end of the rainbow. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 735-755.
NASA has faced many tragedies during their time; but one can question if two of the tragedies were preventable by changing some critical decisions made by the organization. The investigation board looking at the decisions made for the space shuttle tragedies of the Columbia and Challenger noted that the “loss resulted as much from organizational as from technical failures” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 191). The two space shuttle tragedies were about twenty years apart, they both had technical failures but politics also played a factor in to these two tragedies.
Lack of authority and direction at NASA: The agency did not have a permanent administrator for almost four months and there was a high turnover rate among the high level management employees.
Spector, B. (2013). Implementing organizational change: theory into practice. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ
Collins and Pinch draw a distinctive line between what actually happened and the public’s perspective on what happened. The public had a compulsive desire to create a moral lesson and provide heroes and villains. Many people misconstrued this as a conflict between the knowledgeable engineers and the greedy management. The public believed that NASA and Thiokol’s managers were ignorant to the engineering, but this is not true, since they were all engineers before their promotion to management. The authors stress the phrase “after the event” to show that hindsight bias is contributing to the public’s view on what actually happened. The physicist, Richard Feynman, awed the public with a demonstration of putting rubber, the material of the O-ring, in icy water. Th...
In 1986, the Challenger crew met at NASA's Kennedy Space Center for countdown training. The crew of this shuttle included two civilians and five astronaut members: “Teacher-in-Space” payload specialist Christa McAuliffe; payload specialist Gregory Jarvis; and astronauts Judith A. Resnik, mission specialist; Dick Scobee, mission commander; Ronald E. McNair, mi...
Elite Engineering has been unable to successfully implement change because they haven’t been able to get the employees to see the need for the change and to believe in the change. “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.” (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008) Change is often met with resistance. When it comes down to it many people fear change. At Elite Engineering, the engineers were happy with the way things were being run. They enjoyed the billable work they were doing and did not want to take the time to collaborate with others, as it would take away time from their billable work. The engineers saw the billable work they were doing as a way to ensure they received their bonus at the end of the year. However, they were failing to see that the litigation business was going to begin to shrink and in order for them to remain competitive, changes needed to be made. Kotter and Schlesinger state that there are for common reasons that people resist change. The four reasons are the desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change. (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008) At Elite Engineering, I think upper management was unsuccessful at implementing change because the employees didn’t want to lose their bonuses (something of value to them), they misunderstood the change, and they didn’t feel that the change made sense for the organization.
Kegan, R. & L. Laskow Lahey. (2009). Immunity to Change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Change is the only constant in life. And therefore it should be understood as part of a continuing work in progress that calls for a much broader canvas that seeks out competing voices, and works with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions and tensions of messy reality (Graetz, F. & Smith, A., 2010). In this submission I try to show that organizational change is majorly based on the environment surrounding it much more than the desire of the members or change agents working in that organization. This view diverts from that of Lippitt, (1958) who suggests that implementing planned organizational changes successfully depends on premeditated interventions intended to modify the functioning of an organization. It also diverts from the traditional approaches to organizational change that generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong leader or ‘guiding coalition (Collis, 1998). In this discussion therefore, comparison made between the different philosophies of change and I try to show that successful change implantation largely depends on an organizations appreciation of what goes on around it rather than what they have planned as a strategic direction.
The challenger shuttle disaster was a catastrophic event on January 28, 1986. The unthinkable happened as the shuttle burst 73 seconds after takeoff leaving all seven crew members dead. This included teacher in space Christa McAuliffe who was going to teach lessons from space to children in schools across the nation. This devastating end to a much celebrated launch brought tears to the eyes of many including the school children watching the unsuccessful launch. The tragedy led many to questioning why and how this disaster occurred which later NASA concluded was because of the rubber O-rings being burned by propellant gases and the spacecraft set fire causing it to break apart or explode.
Before we look at the images of managing change that were present in the NASA case study let us review a few of the key events in this case study. The case study for this assignment looks at Challenger and Columbia NASA space shuttle disasters and the commission findings on the disasters/recommendations. Now with a short review of the case study what image(s) of change are present in the case study? From the case study the changes introduced are images of managing. These changes are both management of control and shaping. As NASA recovered from the 1986 Challenger disaster, it used the classic Fayol characterization of management such as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling to correct from the top-down the issues that had caused the Challenger disaster (Palmer Dunford, Akin, pg.24, 2009). NASA approached the changes that need to be enacted as a result of the Challenger and also the Columbia disasters from the change image of a director. NASA ...
Change is a fundamental element of individuals, groups and all sorts of organizations. As it is the case for individuals, groups and societies, where change is a continuous process, composed of an indefinite amount of smaller sub-changes that vary in effect and length, and is affected by all sorts of aspects and events, many of which cyclic are anticipated ones. It is also the case for organizations, where change occurs repeatedly during the life cycle of organizations. Yet change in organizations is not as anticipated nor as predictable, with unexpected internal and external variables and political forces that can further complicate the management of change (Andriopoulos, C. and P. Dawson, 2009), which is by itself, the focus of many scholars in their pursuit to shed light on and facilitate the change process (Kotter 1996; Levin 1947; et al).
Judge Jr., W. Q. (2013, February). Focusing on Organizational Change. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from VitalSource: Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/MBS1549164/cfi/160!/4/4@0.00:39.5
Middlebrook, B., Caruth, D., & Frank, R. (1984, Summer 85). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Management Journal, 50(3), pp. 23.
The change process within any organization can prove to be difficult and very stressful, not only for the employees but also for the management team. Hayes (2014), highlights seven core activities that must take place in order for change to be effective: recognizing the need for change, diagnosing the change and formulating a future state, planning the desired change, implementing the strategies, sustaining the implemented change, managing all those involved and learning from the change. Individually, these steps are comprised of key actions and decisions that must be properly addressed in order to move on to the next step. This paper is going to examine how change managers manage the implementation of change and strategies used
One of the first scholars to describe the process of organizational change was Lewin (1974). He described change as a three-stage process that consists of unfreezing, moving and freezing stage. During the unfreezing stage the organizations become motivated to change by some event or objective. The moving stage is like implementation when the organization actually makes the necessary change. Furthermore the freezing stage is reached when the change becomes permanent. Organizational change has also...