Institutions with vast financial means seem to be able to produce whatever results necessary to support their desired outcomes. As seen in the Wal-mart case, the prosecuting attorneys felt as though they had found statistical evidence to support discrimination in the company. To no surprise, the Wal Mart officials declared that THEIR analysts had found much different results. Point being, through manipulation and incidences of groupthink groups,statistics, and conclusions can be skewed by the "powers that be". In the case regarding Columbia and the foam debris, the narrative clearly shows a situation in which NASA's officials were not interested in hearing inconclusive results. By steering the analysts towards an outcome which supported the launch, officials deliberately deprived analysts of vital information. In this case, the negligence put lives in direct danger. The article really outlines the dilemma in creating cohesion in groups. It is clearly important to have cooperation in groups, but as this article suggests, lack of cognitive diversity can certainly limit the groups ability to consider conflicting approaches. The NASA situation was certainly caused by the pressures applies from higher ranking officials. The members wanted to have their names attached to a successful mission, so they applied that pressure to their subordinates thus allowing for nothing other than a launch. The members involved lost their will to consider anything other than positive conclusions. Their only cry for help; stating that their evidence developed from limited resources.
When I read the article I didn't see it the same way you did. I think you are right in saying that the higher-ups in NASA wanted their names attached to a successful launch, which is understandable. Your statement, "...allowing for nothing other than a launch" is pretty much right. It does seem as if they were almost forced into saying that everything would be fine and that there is no reason to worry.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that everyone under the "higher ups" in the launch probably felt pressure to push data that supported a launch. However I felt that even if they felt this pressure that they would have had enough sense and ethical thinking to see that what they were doing was wrong. The cons were way greater than the pros and it seemed at least to me that the experts we have at NASA could handle that kind of pressure.
ReplyDeleteThe decision is obviously a tough one for anyone to make. Should they go with the statistics that said it probably wouldn't be successful and not even attempt to gain the knowledge they could from the mission, or send the astronauts off despite the risk of human life loss. I don't know how much time they spent weighing the pros and cons, but I hope they really did take into consideration that the mission could bring an end to lives. I agree with Savanna that the experts at NASA could handle that pressure, but even after thirty years of training, I wouldn't. Maybe they really couldn't, either. I feel like inaction is a good solution in those instances.
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how the option of yes or no can have such an impact on the decision being made. There is always going to be that chance of picking the wrong choice and dealing with the consequences, in this case it even led to death. I would agree that at times people can have such an influence on other's decisions that it alters the desired outcome, but I feel like that is just part of out it works. There is always going to be someone who is voting against you, what matters is finding all the information and weighing the pros and cons especially in such huge decisions like NASA. It is obvious that the high ranking officials swayed the decisions of the others, however through this experience I am sure employees learned lessons that will eliminate this from happening again.
ReplyDelete