Organizational Behavior

Assignment : Group Challenger Case

Submitted By : Group 9 (PG-A)
Partha Sarathi Banerjee (Roll No-9)
Tamoghna Das (Roll No-19)
Ashish Kuruvilla (Roll No-29)
Avik Mishra (Roll No-39)
Swapnil Rahee (Roll No-49)
Akansha Srivastava (Roll No-59)






Q1- (a)How could you characterize the broader context surrounding the January 1986
conference?
(b)What impact might that have on the group decision making process?
Ans-(a) The January 1986 teleconference was a battle between qualitative assumptions and
quantitative data. It was highly skewed towards theoretical knowledge, looking for facts and
figures, instead of relying on practical experience. The discussion was dominated by Larry
Mulloy, who in his status of being the clients (NASA) representative, was able to have an upper
hand upon Morton Thiokols representatives. The conversation rode on the norm that the
expected role of the vendor is to follow the dictates of the client. This role perception paved the
way for the discussion to be skewed against the realistic course of action.
The data presented by Morton Thiokol was ambiguous and lacked any conclusive evidence to
back their apprehensions. On the other hand, the arguments of the NASA team were based on the
cost and time constraints hindering the launch process. Further, a shortcut of selective perception
was displayed by NASA team to validate their claims.
The leaders of both the teams were playing the role of a figurehead instead of guiding the
discussion towards a cohesive decision. As the discussion was heading towards a deadlock,
Morton Thiokol team became cautious of their vendor status and had a fear of creating a negative
impression.
(b)The role perception, role expectation, norms and status led to a group shift in the decision
making process culminating in Morton Thiokol succumbing to NASAs pressure, thereby
recommending a go ahead for the launch.

Q2 : How would you characterize group processes in the teleconference? What lead to
ineffective handling of the situation?
Ans 2: Basically the group in the teleconference was divided into two, one was the NASA team
and the second was Thiokol team.
The basic essentials for the team functioning was missing in Thiokol team, even though it
had well defined leadership and structure but lacked a climate of trust and adequate resources.
Ms. Thompson and Mr. Boisjoly lacked the basic resources at their disposal to understand study
and prove their concerns, and the team leader Mr Kilmister was skeptical about the team
members' concerns which clearly showed the lack of trust on this team members. On the other
hand the NASA team was against of the whole idea of postponing the launch without enough
material evidence, and the even the team leader was not willing to may be understand the
importance of the concerns being highlighted at the last moment, and was trying to pressurise
Thiokol team to align to the decisions which was in accordance to NASA plans.

Q3- (a) What issues did Roger Boisjoly, Bob Lund and Larry Mulloy face?
(b)How should they have approached the teleconference?

Ans- (a) Roger Boisjoly was trying to establish the argument based on prior experience and
assumptions which were not backed by quantitative data. This resulted in difficulty in convincing
his apprehensions to their client. Bob Lund directly jumped to present the conclusion to the
clients instead of first explaining the safety concerns and discussing other alternatives. This put
forward an impression that the vendor was trying to change the launch commit criteria which
militated against the contract. Larry Mulloy on the other hand was a bit dominant and was
suffering from go fever attitude. He was ignorant of the legitimate concerns of the vendor and
relied on theoretical knowledge.
(b) Roger Boisjoly should have presented more quantitative data based on more conclusive
research. He should also have raised the issue at an earlier stage instead of waiting for the last
moment. He should have been prepared to put to rest all the ambiguities in the data that the client
could have pointed. Bob Lund, on his part should have first let Roger and Arnie Thompson
explain the rationale behind their apprehensions. Larry Mulloy should have been more agreeable
to the concerns put forward by the vendor since those were related to catastrophic possibilities.
As a manager, he should have based his decision on expert opinion instead of selective
perception since the consequences were of greater significance than the cost and time constraints.