http://litsikakis.wordpress.

com/article/organizational-behavior-power-conflict-3ib8exvrc87n4-10/

Organizational Behavior: Power, Conflict & Group Work

The Apollo 13 case study
JULY 8, 2009

AUT HORS

Litsikakis Dimitrios
ABSTR ACT

This report offers insight into various aspects of Organisational Behavior that have been identified from three different incidents in the sequence of events surrounding the Apollo 13 mission. We put forward a number of characteristics found in various members of organisations. These usually relate to positions, roles, goals, authority, communication, attitudes and relationships

Introduction
This report offers insight into various aspects of Organisational Behaviour that have been identified from three different incidents in the sequence of events surrounding the Apollo 13 mission. We put forward a number of characteristics found in various members of organisations. These usually relate to positions, roles, goals, authority, communication, attitudes and relationships. The main focus has been placed on four aspects which we have identified as pertaining to the incidents chosen. The first of the three incidents selected is referred to as the Medical Incident. Here we take a look at the situations of conflict that arise when there is a imposed change in the formation of the Apollo 13 crew. We also take a brief look at the organisational structure of NASA, since the way in which the organisation is designed has an impact on how its members behave. The second incident is referred to as the Failure is Not an Option Incident concentrates on the aspect of power and leadership that is demonstrated by an individual in the organisation, namely the Flight Director on duty during the Apollo 13 mission. We take a look at the types of power he possesses and the way it affects his leadership style. Finally, the third incident which is referred to as the Manual Burn Incident relates to the behavioural aspects of group and team members within this particular organisation. We take a look at how these groups and teams are formed and how they associate with each other and work together to successfully achieve their goals and objectives. But below, we only discuss on the topic conflict and negotiations for incident 1.

Incident # 1 The Medical Incident

Brief Description
Ken Mattingly, who was originally selected to be command module pilot, is removed from the flight two days before launch because of the risk he might be infected after being exposed to measles. Jim Lovell, commander of Apollo 13, argues to keep Ken Mattingly, who is one of the most conscientious, hard working of all the astronauts. The medical team think that the risk is too great so Jim is forced to

replace Ken with Jack Swigert, the backup command module pilot who has been out of the loop for weeks.

Conflict
Conflict appears to be an integral component of human functioning (Slabbert, 2003, Pg 83). There are many definitions of conflict, each one with a different key aspect. Most of the times, conflict is the situation where one side perceives that the other side is blocking its goal achievement and expectation (Kwahk & Kim, 1998, Pg 448). In Apollo 13, Jim and his superiors have a serious organizational conflict, which is far more evident in problem solving and decision making situations (Paul et. al, 2004, Pg 304). In this case a decision must be taken upon a medical recommendation: on the one hand, Jim thinks that the medical advisor undermines his mission because he wants to replace one member of the team two days before launch. On the other hand, the medical advisor thinks that it is too dangerous to let Ken fly on this mission because of serious indications that he is going to get sick during a crucial part of the mission. The doctor has the support of senior management, especially Deke who does not want to take that risk. In this situation, there is also another person involved. Acting as a mediator he is the neutral third party person who assists in the achievement of a negotiated solution by using reason and presentation of alternatives (Buchanan & Huczynski, 1997, Pg 658).

Faced with these facts, Jim now has two options, he can either choose to replace Ken and continue with his mission on the Apollo 13, or he can cancel the mission and his team will be used for the next mission.

Jim seems to use two different conflict resolution approaches (Whetton & Cameron, 2005, Pg 410). When he talks to his superior, Jim cannot do much to persuade him change his mind, so he uses the accommodating approach because he thinks that the mission should continue despite any lastminute changes. He thinks that the final project success is more important than one team member, letting the desire to obtain his and NASAs goals (concern for production) overcome the desire to retain interpersonal relationships (concern for people) (Holt & DeVore, 2005, Pg 167). He balances the cost in money, time and reputation for his organisation (NASA) and he makes a decision to carry on without Ken. When he talks to Ken, he changes his conflict resolution method to forcing because he just announces his decision to the rest of the team, without any option of discussion. When Ken says to Jim that they can talk to Deke and persuade him not to change the crew, he replies This was my call and ends the issue there.

As a new member of the crew, Jacks capabilities are questioned by the fact that he has not practised enough in the simulator. The conflict between Jack and Fred is obvious from the beginning, because Fred has an informal connection with his friend Ken. Worchel (2005) points out the division of people into groups can sow the seeds of conflict so from the minute they split into two groups (Jim and Fred against Jack), it was inevitable that conflict would arise. Development of each conflict episode is determined by a complex combination of the effects of preceding episodes (Vaaland & Hakansson, 2003, Pg 128), so during execution phase (flight), these two men express their feelings and argument, at the risk of the project success. It is Jim who takes action as commander (or Project Manager) and uses the smoothing conflict management style where he recognises that disagreement exists and minimizes the differences while striving for harmony (Gobeli, Koenig & Bechinger, 1998, Pg 427). It is therefore clear that Jim is a very experienced leader who can manage conflicts, which after all are inevitable consequences of organisational structures (Mullins, 2005, Pg 904) (Clegg, 2004, Pg 255), using different styles and techniques to address the problem. This feature makes him flexible and successful because he can identify the situation he is in and change his method of resolving conflicts.

Structure
Organization structure is the system of arrangements, the pattern or network of relations, between the various positions and their holders (Buchanan & Huczynski 1997, Pg 297). Mintzberg (1981, Pg 104) notes, how that coordination is achieved, by whom, and with what, dictates what the organization will look like. The structure of every organisation depends on how the activi ties are ordered.

In the case of NASA, the structure appears to be a Tall Organization Structure. Tall structures usually imply that there is a high level of bureaucracy and fewer employees report to each manager and hence the span-of-control of each manager is narrow (Buchanan & Huczynski, 1997 Pg 297). Therefore, because the organisation is more bureaucratic, information from one department to the other has to go through the managers. In this particular incident, the medical team advise their superior of their findings, he in turn reports to Deke (Jims superior), who then passes on the information to Jim, who then finally delivers his decision to his team.

Conclusion
In conclusion, based on the three incidents identified in this report, the main characteristics identified show the strong relationships between members involved in the Apollo 13 Mission. A key behavioural characteristic shows the different types of conflict resolution styles. These conflict resolution styles appear to differ according to the position of the members that, in this case, Jim is dealing with. During the discussions with his superiors, Jim tends to be more submissive, while he appears to be more aggressive and decisive when dealing with team mates whom he is in charge of. Jim addresses conflict and uses resolution methods wisely because he makes a distinction based on the levels of hierarchy. As a result of the conflict situations that arise, the impact of the informal structure of the individuals and their relationships seem to overcome the rigidity of the formal structure of the organisation. Although there is a change in the formation of the team, the structure remains the same. However, the strong relationship bonds have an impact on the way the team operates which results in lack of support and cooperation.

References
1. Abdel-Hamid, T (1999), The Impact of Goals on Software Project Management: An Experimental Investigation, MIS Quarterly, 23:531-555 2. Buchanan, David & Huczynski, Andrzej, (1997) Organizational Behaviour: an introductory text, Prentice Hall 3. Buchanan, David & Huczynski, Andrzej (2004) Organisational Behaviour, Prentice-Hall Inc. 4. Clegg, (2004) International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, Page 255, [Electronic] 5. Crainer, S (1998), Key Management Ideas; Thinkers That Changed The Management World, Prentice Hall 6. Gobeli, Koenig & Bechinger, (1998) Managing Conflict in Software Development Teams: A Multilevel Analysis, vol 15, Pg 423435, [Electronic] 7. Henry M. (1981) Organization Design: fashion or fit? Harvard business review, Vol 59(1), Pg 103-116 [Electronic] 8. Hodge, B & Johnson, H (1970), Management and Organizational Behaviour, John Wiley &Sons Inc 9. Holt & DeVore, (2005) Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis, International Journal of Intercultural Relations Vol 29 Pg 165196, [Electronic] 10. Huczynski, Andrzej & Buchanan, David (2001), Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, Prentice Hall 11. Jaques, D (2000), Learning in Groups, Kogan Page 12. Krackhardt D. & Hanson J. R. (1993) Informal Networks: The Company Behind the chart, Harvard Business Review, July-August, Pg 104-110 [Electronic]

13. Kwahk & Kim, (1998) A Cognitive Model Based Approach for Organizational Conflict Resolution, International Journal of Information Management, Vol 18, No 6, Pg 443-456, [Electronic] 14. Levine A.S. (1982) Managing NASA In The Apollo Era, Page 27-34, Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, Washington D.C