Seminar 5

1.What can we learn about effective or ineffective strategic leadership from the Challenger case? 

Effective:
+ Try to get your mission accomplished (not effective in this case but in general)
+ Take some risk to achieve goals but at the same time be critic& bring things into question at the right point 
+ Having a flexible plan
+ Being a good listener& being accessible, decide democratic

Ineffective:
- Managers not being accessible for employees
Wrong priority setting, dependence on others (in this case e.g. media)
- Focus too much on profit, not taking into account ethical issues
- Single chain of command, reporting structure is inefficient and is not suited for communicating important issues quickly to the appropriate management level of consideration
- Risk management: engineers and managers not being in in the same view regarding the risk associated with the defects (different objectives)

What are the underlying reasons why the mission went ahead? 

• Publicity focus led to pressure of public opinion (shared mindset, the flight had to be launched)
• No clear regulations/ grey area on technical issues led to an easier justification of the launch
• "Space war" with Russia, several postponements before would have led to NASA "loosing their face" in case of another abort
• "Management hat" instead of using good sense, focus on profit& fulfilling promises 

Who or what was to blame? 

• In the end: all involved
• NASA management team: for silencing essential information about defects, not considering engineers
• MT management team: for not passing information to NASA, not refusing to fulfil contract for safety-related reasons
• MT engineers: for passing the buck to their management to a certain point, not involving media 

What else should the engineers have done to stop the mission?

• Stand up and stand ground!
• Probably involve media (to attract notice at the appropriate level)
• Argue beyond technical/ rational arguments

How are the sort of issues that Carrefour or the NHS or Madonna face similar or different to the Challenger case? Is it possible to compare them at all?

= similar

• decisions on issues do not only have effects on balance sheets but also on image, trust, etc.
• The challenger mission as well as Carrefour, the NHS and Madonna are in the centre of attention and therefore influenced somehow by shared mindsets

≠ different

• To Carrefour, NHS, Madonna: issues do not only causing negative effects for decision makers (as it is mainly the case in the other cases) but also for others
• Issues at the NASA concern human lives directly and therefore should be handled with an extra portion of attention and risk awareness

In my opinion, it is possible to compare the issues that the different "parties" are faced to up to a certain point because they all require decision and affect people somehow (and that is what strategic leadership is mainly about).