Site Loader

Introduction:For this paper.

I have chosen to analyse the leading public presentation of Linda Ham. Chair of Mission Management Team. and Daniel S. Goldin. NASA Administrator.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

1992–2001. Both. in my appraisal.

were portion of the job. and non portion of the solution. Both succumbed to outside political forces and placed much more accent on run intoing self-imposed deadlines than astronaut safety. Both bit by bit dismissed the huge bulk of the recommendations of the Rogers Commission after the loss of the Challenger and doomed NASA to reiterate history.Background of leader # 1:Linda Ham. Chair of the Mission Management squad for the last Columbia mission. was hired by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) shortly after she graduated college. She began her calling with NASA as a Propulsion Systems Monitor at the Lyndon B.

Johnson Space Center in Houston. Texas. Over the old ages she rose through the ranks of NASA to Chair the Mission Management squad for STS-107. which was the failed mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia that broke up upon re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere.Background of leader # 2:Daniel S. Goldin. NASA Administrator. 1992–2001.

was hired by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) shortly after he graduated college. He began his calling at NASA’s Lewis Research Center in Cleveland. Ohio working in electric propulsion systems for human interplanetary travel. He left NASA a few old ages subsequently and began working for the TRW Space and Technology Group. Over his 25 twelvemonth calling at TRW. Goldin rose through the ranks to go the Vice President and General Manager of TRW. Goldin so returned to NASA and became its longest tenured Administrator.

Goldin was known for being able to cut costs and still supply many infinite plans.His “crusade for efficiency” ( 2004 ) ended up being the most seeable defect in an disposal doctrine that lost another seven spacemans. Another glance into what sort of adult male and leader Daniel S. Goldin is. can be found in a case by the Department of Justice that “that seeks more than $ 170 million from TRW Inc. . which is accused of embroidering authorities infinite contracts with research-and-development costs ‘that should hold been paid out of TRW’s net incomes. ’ The case contends that Daniel S.

Goldin. who ran the company’s Space & A ; Technology Group during the early 1990s. participated in the alleged overcharges by authorising fishy accounting patterns. ” ( 1998 )Leadership manners:Both Goldin and Ham clearly pushed the NASA docket which was set by Goldin. Both appear to suit into the bossy leading manner in that they demanded absolute obeisance. Neither fostered a civilization where diverse sentiment was welcome. Both created an ambiance where diverse or dissenting sentiment was ignored and unwelcome. Goldin and Ham forced many NASA employees.

specifically applied scientists and safety forces. to go “organizational bystanders” ( 2008 ) because they were unwilling to put on the line their calling to dispute the docket of Goldin and Ham. NASA became a workplace with administrative winkers on. “NASA is non working as a acquisition organization” ( Gehman. 2003 ) . “ [ NASA mission directors ] were convinced.

without survey. that nil could be done about such an exigency.The rational wonder and incredulity that a solid safety civilization requires was about wholly absent. Shuttle directors did non encompass safety-conscious attitudes. Alternatively. their attitudes were shaped and reinforced by an organisation that.

in this case. was incapable of stepping back and estimating its prejudices. Bureaucracy and procedure trumped thoroughness and reason” ( Gehman.

2003 ) . Ham’s influence on STS-107 is most clearly described in this extract from the Case Study on the Columbia Accident by Maureen Hogan Casamayou. George Mason University. Fairfax. Virginia:Ham did ask about the froth work stoppage. but: non to find what action to take during Columbia’s mission.

but to understand the deductions for STS-114. During a Mission Management Team meeting on January 21. she asked about the principle put frontward at the STS-113 Flight Readiness reappraisal passed muster non because of their built-in cogency ( and therefore greater safety for the crew ) but merely to establish another bird into infinite on agenda. As the CAIB study provinces.

Ham’s focal point on analyzing the principle for go oning to wing after froth jobs with STS-87 and STS-112 indicates that her attending had already shifted from the menace of the froth posed to STS-107 to the downstream deductions of the froth work stoppage. Ham was due to function. . . as the launch integrating director for the following mission. STS-114. If the Shuttle Program’s principle to wing with foam loss was found to be flawed. the flight.

due to be launched in approximately a month. would hold to be delayed per NASA regulations that require serious jobs to be resolved before the following flight.An STS-114 hold could in bend hold completion of the International Space Station’s Node 2.

which was a high precedence end for NASA directors. Further grounds of her preoccupation with run intoing the designated launch agenda was reflected in Ham’s concern about the length of clip to treat exposures of the Columbia on-orbit. Harmonizing to the CAIB. on January 23rd: Ham raised concerns that the excess clip spent steering Columbia to do the left wing seeable for imaging would unduly impact the mission agenda ; for illustration. scientific discipline experiments would hold to halt while imagination was taken.

Harmonizing to personal notes obtained by the Board: “Linda Ham said it was no longer being pursued since even if we saw something. we couldn’t make anything about it. The Program didn’t want to pass the resources. ” ( CAIBR 2003 )Further grounds of the undisputed premises and deficiency of rational wonder at NASA is described by Niewoehner & A ; Steidle. “At the January 24. Mission Management Team meeting at which the “no safety-of-flight” decision was presented. there was small technology treatment about the premises made. and how the consequences would differ if other premises were used.

Engineering solutions presented to direction should hold included a quantifiable scope of uncertainness and hazard analysis. Those types of tools were readily available. routinely used. and would hold helped direction understand the hazard involved in the determination.

Management. in bend. should hold demanded such information. The really absence of a clear and unfastened treatment of uncertainnesss and premises in the analysis presented should hold caused direction to examine farther. ” ( 2009 ) A different result:In reexamining this instance survey. I am about certain that leading manner played a secondary function in the state of affairs.

The primary issue appears to be that the leaders. Goldin and Ham to be specific. allowed the outside influence of budgetary restraints imposed by Congress and the Presidential Administration to determine their mission and vision for NASA.

In practical footings. the sum of money in the budget and the self-imposed ends of the figure of shuttle missions to maintain that budget from diminishing over-road concern for safety. Not merely did it over-ride that concern for safety. but it created an organisational civilization that ignored any line of believing that challenged or threatened NASA’s ends. We must retrieve that there are drawbacks in saying specific identified authorities organisational ends.When a authorities. or a constituent of authorities. prognosiss where it wants to be in the hereafter.

it binds itself to those identified ends. Administrators become personally affiliated or emotionally involved and are loth to alter for fright of looking to acknowledge failure. This surely affected the leading and policy determinations of Goldin and Ham. Rocha could hold done more to convey the safety concerns to visible radiation.

nevertheless in retrospect. he clearly would hold risked his calling in making so. We need more leaders. and followings. who are willing to put on the line their calling particularly when human life is at interest. A different result for STS-107 is really likely if NASA had genuinely functioned as a “High Reliability Organization” .

which Weick and Sutcliffe ( 2001 ) say is characterized by:•A preoccupation with failure•Reluctance to simplify readings•Sensitivity to operations•Commitment to resilience•Deference to expertiseGoldin and Ham could hold implemented the five cardinal dimensions of coaction: administration. disposal. organisational liberty. mutualness. and norms of trust and reciprocality. They could hold created a squad or commission to reexamine. research. and assess each and every safety concern that was raised by any NASA employee.

This squad should hold negotiated. committed. and so implemented those committednesss. There was no trust and reciprocality between the NASA applied scientists and the NASA mission directors.

Goldin and Ham should hold embraced a more Democratic Leadership Style. “Although a Democratic leader will do the concluding determination. he/she invites other members of the squad to lend to the determination devising procedure.

This non merely increases occupation satisfaction by affecting employees or squad members in what’s traveling on.

but it besides help to develop people’s accomplishments. Employees and squad members feel in control of their ain fate. such as the publicity they deserve and so are motivated to work hard by more than merely a fiscal wages. As engagement takes clip. this attack can take to things go oning more easy but frequently the terminal consequence is better.

The attack can be most suited where squad work is indispensable and quality is more of import than velocity to market productiveness. ” ( 2012 )Yes. they would hold probably missed future deadlines. likely scratched future missions. and possibly even lost some of NASA’s cherished support from Congress. but the strengths of the five cardinal dimensions were ne’er given a opportunity to predominate.

The ground why is glaringly clear: “The most dearly-won resources of coaction are non money but clip and energy. neither of which can be induced. ” Huxham ( 1996 ) With NASA’s full map hinging on budgetary concerns that became rigorous deadlines.

clip trumped safety and everyone from Congress and the Presidential disposal to NASA direction and the full work force. all have “blood on their custodies. ”My mentality:As a future leader. I am most deeply struck by the impact of bureaucratism. I believe that even Goldin and Ham would hold changed their determinations had they had the benefit of hindsight and knew that seven spacemans would lose their lives because of their deficiency of leading.

direction. and administrative capablenesss. We must listen to alternate point of views and promote unfastened duologue as future authorities leaders. We must endeavor for objectiveness in our position and non let our vision to be narrowed by cleaving excessively tightly to a construct or thought that was good in another scene. If human safety is in any manner a factor. our degree of examination in garnering facts for determination devising must be to the uttermost. My biggest take-away from this assignment is larning the definition of a “high dependability organization” and the five slugs that must be embraced to be a true “high dependability organization” . I will take this construct with me for the remainder of my calling.

Roberts. A. ( 2004 ) . The reform bubble explosions. Public Administration Review.

64 ( 5 ) . 625-629. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //search. proquest. com/docview/197172592? accountid=27965 By. A.

P. ( 1998. Feb 20 ) . Civil fraud case against TRW inc. over infinite contracts is joined by U.

S. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //search. proquest. com/docview/398647798? accountid=27965 Marc. S. G. .

& A ; Robert. B. S. ( 2008 ) . Organizational bystanders. Peoples and Strategy.

31 ( 1 ) . 47-54. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //search. proquest. com/docview/224596278? accountid=27965 Gehman. H.

W. et. Al. .

Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Report Volume 1 ( CAIB ) ( August 2003 ) .
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report ( Washington D. C. : Government Printing Office. Limited First Printing. August 2003 )Robert. J.

N. . & A ; Craig. E. S. ( 2009 ) . The loss of the infinite bird Columbia: Portaging leading lessons with a critical thought theoretical account.

Engineering Management Journal. 21 ( 1 ) . 9-18. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //search. proquest. com/docview/208970180? accountid=27965 Weick.

K. . & A ; Sutcliffe. K. ( 2001 ) . Pull offing the Unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Bhatti. N.

. Ghulam. M.

M. . Shaikh. N. .

Muhammad. A. H. .

& A ; Faiz. M. S.

( 2012 ) . The impact of bossy and democratic leading manner on occupation satisfaction. International Business Research. 5 ( 2 ) . 192-201. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //search. proquest. com/docview/963357720? accountid=27965 Huxham.

Chris. 1996. Collaboration and Collaborative Advantage. In Making Collaborative Advantage.

edited by Chris Huxham. 1–18. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications. ( Stillman cccxxiii )Stillman.

Richard. Public Administration. 9th Edition. Cengage Learning US.

Aug-04. .

Post Author: admin