Analysis NASA Challenger Case - Essay Example

Due Analysis NASA Challenger case Truth is a fundamental aspect in giving out a recommendation about an employee. As an administrator, I would give a negative recommendation, stating the negative traits that Gadams has. The recommendation would site Gadam as an enthusiastic administrator, but he cannot serve as an assistant principal. This is due to his sexual offences that he has conducted in the institution. Gadam’s administrators could have written the full truth about Gadam. The administrators are obliged to disclose all material facts about their employees.

This would have enabled other institutions not to hire him due to his character. Administrators owe their loyalty to the employees, students, school districts and the parents. Employees rely on the information given to them by the administrators. In addition, parents have trusted the administrators to protect their children. Moreover, school districts have mandated the administrators to achieve laid down goals and objectives. Finally, students expect administrators to ensure their safety and quality service delivery to them.

In order for the administration to protect their relationship with employees, they give this type of recommendation when getting rid of their employees. They give an employee a chance of another employment by another institution. In most cases friendship tend to have outdo honesty. Administrators tend to offer half-truths about their employees due to friendship. However, that not ought to be the case. Honesty in the workplace is fundamental, since it ensures that there is trust among the administrators.

In addition, honest information makes one to make right decisions.In the Gadam’s case, the administrators said nothing about Gadam’s behavior. This may have been due to the friendship that existed between the administrators and Gadam. Moreover, due to the fear of tarnishing the reputation of the institutions by a negative recommendation letter about one of their employee. In the NASA case, the managers are fully responsible for the explosion. Despite their knowledge in engineering and the reasons the engineers gave against the launch, they adamantly gave an okay for the launch of the rocket.

In addition, they decided to throw their engineering knowledge to the wind and embrace the management skills. I would have tried to persuade the managers not to launch the rocket, if I was in the position of McDonald or Boisjoly. Moreover, I could have warned the six astronauts and Christa McAuliffe about the danger they were about to get to.Work CitedVaughan, Diane. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at Nasa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Internet resource.