Astronauts: The Strike In Space Case
In the Strike in Space case, there are two primary problems. One major problem is the misuse of authority of the ground control in the way it manages the astronauts.
This abuse of power is evident in several sub-issues such as: micromanagement, procedural injustice, and the disregard for employee input. Another major problem is lack of motivation caused by unrealistic expectations, poorly defined goals, and the absence of an incentive policy.
Micromanagement (Taylorism/Scientific Management)
The level of micromanagement applied by the mission control upon the astronauts is a key sub-issue that adds to the primary misuse of power problem. Clearly there are several elements of Taylorim at play here, in regards to the reason why this
level of micromanagement was established. Similar to Frederick Taylor, Neil Hutchinson - who represents mission control in this organization - felt strongly that the shift of all responsibility from the astronauts (workers) to mission control (manager) was a key principle for a successful mission. In regards to this line of thinking, every minute of each astronaut’s day was scheduled and programmed according to how the manager felt, was the most scientifically efficient way of doing each activity that was required by the worker. Hutchinson felt that, after the exhaustive selection processes and extensive training programs, the astronauts were ready to perform that this high level of detailed efficiency. Not receiving this level of complete compliance that is expected with this approach, frustrated Hutchinson into commenting that he would be happier if Skylab had been a mechanical unmanned satellite.
From the 3rd crew’s point of view, this was not the ideal way of working considering that Taylor’s five simple principles were ideally tailored for lower educated workers with routine based tasks. The crew agreed that there was one efficient way of completing a task, which they were happy to comply with but requested that more freedom and flexibility were allowed on the allocated time constraint. They felt that been given a shopping or to-do list of the day’s activities with the freedom to complete the tasks at their daily pace and schedule would have been more ideal.
Applying this level of micromanagement and the relatively high evolution of efficiency expectations from the 1st crew to the 3rd, resulted in a buildup of resentment, anger and tension on both sides. This failed attempt at scientific management also resulted in a crippling lack of trust between the two sides.
Recommendations:
Even though, through this micromanagement approach, successful was achieved with the first two crews of Skylab, mission control should have tailored their management style towards the relatively unique personalities of the 3rd crew. Mission control should have recognized the potential difficulties encountered by first time astronauts, PhD educated science astronaut trying to conform to Taylorism, and a slow-to-adapt-to-space Air Force astronaut. Mission control should have realized that for this crew to be most effective, they needed some freedom to enjoy their activities rather than me machine like and systematic.
This abuse of power is evident in several sub-issues such as: micromanagement, procedural injustice, and the disregard for employee input. Another major problem is lack of motivation caused by unrealistic expectations, poorly defined goals, and the absence of an incentive policy.
Micromanagement (Taylorism/Scientific Management)
The level of micromanagement applied by the mission control upon the astronauts is a key sub-issue that adds to the primary misuse of power problem. Clearly there are several elements of Taylorim at play here, in regards to the reason why this
level of micromanagement was established. Similar to Frederick Taylor, Neil Hutchinson - who represents mission control in this organization - felt strongly that the shift of all responsibility from the astronauts (workers) to mission control (manager) was a key principle for a successful mission. In regards to this line of thinking, every minute of each astronaut’s day was scheduled and programmed according to how the manager felt, was the most scientifically efficient way of doing each activity that was required by the worker. Hutchinson felt that, after the exhaustive selection processes and extensive training programs, the astronauts were ready to perform that this high level of detailed efficiency. Not receiving this level of complete compliance that is expected with this approach, frustrated Hutchinson into commenting that he would be happier if Skylab had been a mechanical unmanned satellite.
From the 3rd crew’s point of view, this was not the ideal way of working considering that Taylor’s five simple principles were ideally tailored for lower educated workers with routine based tasks. The crew agreed that there was one efficient way of completing a task, which they were happy to comply with but requested that more freedom and flexibility were allowed on the allocated time constraint. They felt that been given a shopping or to-do list of the day’s activities with the freedom to complete the tasks at their daily pace and schedule would have been more ideal.
Applying this level of micromanagement and the relatively high evolution of efficiency expectations from the 1st crew to the 3rd, resulted in a buildup of resentment, anger and tension on both sides. This failed attempt at scientific management also resulted in a crippling lack of trust between the two sides.
Recommendations:
Even though, through this micromanagement approach, successful was achieved with the first two crews of Skylab, mission control should have tailored their management style towards the relatively unique personalities of the 3rd crew. Mission control should have recognized the potential difficulties encountered by first time astronauts, PhD educated science astronaut trying to conform to Taylorism, and a slow-to-adapt-to-space Air Force astronaut. Mission control should have realized that for this crew to be most effective, they needed some freedom to enjoy their activities rather than me machine like and systematic.