Responding to Groupthink and Faulty Reasoning at NASA - Case Study Example

 1. The people at NASA who questioned the safety of the Columbia mission but kept their doubts to themselves and those who failed to communicate their safety concerns to NASA’s top management are as much to be blamed for the deaths of the seven astronauts who died in the explosion. The rules and standards of ethical, moral, and legal professions include transparency and confiding all information that is crucial and relevant to ensure that all stakeholders are kept in safe and secure conditions. If only one of these people persisted in relaying to top management that there could be eminent danger from the piece of foam that broke the propeller tank, then, some constructive move could have been made that could potentially save these seven astronauts’ lives. 2. If group members have doubts but lack appropriate evidence to support their position, their doubts and concerns should still be communicated to authorized personnel who have the competencies and qualifications to evaluate the matter and substantiate whether there are valid support for the doubts. The important thing is that the concern has been effectively communicated and relayed to higher authorities. 3. If I were head of NASA, I would have launched a rescue shuttle in as far as I am confident that the second shuttle would not meet the same fatal accident regarding the first foam strike that happened with Columbia. I would also solicit as much information as evidently possible to determine alternative courses of action where the Columbia crew could make it back to Earth as innovatively possible. 4. As indicated, NASA has followed these steps to change its culture and to resist groupthink: (1) safety worries are encouraged to be communicated and are not out rightly dismissed; (2) teams of engineers conduct simulations on diverse scenarios to assist in addressing problems and concerns; (3) cross-checking of interventions, suggestions and recommendations from one team of engineers are validated by another group of engineers from a different research center to avoid group think and to encourage taking diverse perspectives; (4) worst case scenarios are proactively established including establishment of contingency plans in these situations. If these changes and activities are continued to encourage innovative thinking, the agency could indeed continue with its progress. Progress could be slow at first but it is always better to be slow than sorry. To make the agency less susceptible to future disasters, they should solicit creative and innovative thinking from external expert parties’ perspectives. In doing so, more creating inputs could be solicited which are not part of group think. 5. One firmly believes that as long as there are serious safety risks in the current shuttle program, they should be grounded, as originally planned. The new missile system should likewise be categorized as comprehensively and extensively safe prior to allowing them to go on missions. Otherwise, NASA would just be facing the same risks and violations of ethical standards for putting their astronauts’ lives at risk. 6. The leadership and followership ethics lessons that were evident in the case include the lack of encouragement for open communication, innovative and creative thinking, and ensuring compliance to ethical standards of safety and security has proven to be detrimental to an organization, such as NASA. Leaders must be encouraging and supportive of inputs, feedbacks and communication that brings to light relevant concerns within the work setting. Likewise, followers have the responsibility and obligation to relay their concerns to management, especially on issues where the safety of the organization’s resources are at stake. Case Study 8.3: Incentives for Organ Donation 1. The ethical principles of utilitarianism could be applied when deciding whether or not to offer incentives to organ donors; meaning deciding on the option which gives the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. If donors are offered incentives, then, more donors would be encouraged to donate organs and more people would benefit from these. 2. The values that are in conflict in the case are altruistic motives (or donating organs entirely for the benefit of others and not for the self) as against the future health conditions of the donors. Likewise, governments seem to forbid the selling of organs which actually causes more people to die waiting for donors. 3. For people who donate organs, reimbursements should include the health costs incurred in the process, the travel costs and pertinent salary lost during the course of addressing the organ donation, as well as the future costs to be expected related to the removed organ (medical bills, medications, etc.). 4. One firmly believes that donors should be allowed to sell their organs, if the donors really are in need: either in cash or in kind (as suggested, a house or a retirement fund). It is only through offering these incentives would they be encouraged to donate (or sell) as needed. Otherwise, just like the current situation, very few would be willing to donate organs, especially since, by donating future health repercussions could be expected to ensue and jeopardize their health. 5. Organs should be allocated by determining the urgency of the need and the potential supply within the area. The federal health agency could control and monitor allocations where they would dictate the costs to be paid and be given to the donors and the allocation to recipients would be determined based on urgency. Meaning, all those in need should pay (for instance $10,000) the USDHHS and all donors would be paid as determined. The moment donors are available, the first organ donated should be allocated to the patient whose life is most at risk if the organ is not transplanted urgently. 6. Yes, I would be a transplant tourist if I need a new organ which I believe could be sourced from another country. It is a matter of life and death. 7. The leadership and followership ethic lessons that could be drawn from the case is the need to balance life and death concerns, not only of the recipients of organ donations, but more so, of the health conditions and future life of the donors. To be able to effectively solicit appropriate supply of organ donations, federal government agencies must ensure that donors are given appropriate remuneration for their donations since it would surely affect their future life. As such, they need to address health care, costs of medications, and other concerns which should be appropriately remunerated by the government. Only then would the concept of utilitarianism be perfectly complied. Read More