u01a1 Workplace Communication

It was Peter F. Drucker that said “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said” (Belzer, 2009, p. 302). Peter Drucker was implying that the most important thing in communication is not to speak, but to be clearly understood. This saying can directly define what happened during the NASA Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters. There are many things that contributed to those shuttle disasters; communication however played a substantial role in both. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the result of a number of things going wrong. The o-rings that were used on the solid rocket boosters seem to be the determining factor. Many Morton Thiokol engineers were worried that the o-rings would not perform well in low temperatures. They were not certain that the o-rings were going to work efficiently enough to have a successful launch. They attempted to escalate these concerns to upper management but without supported data nothing was done. Management continued the launch which resulted in the Space Shuttle Challenger crew losing their lives with complete loss of the shuttle. February 1, 2003, NASA saw another tragedy unfold because of erroneous communication. Columbia Shuttle flight 107 exploded after re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere. Part of the foam insulation that was used on the shuttle hit the left wing, damaging the Shuttle’s thermal system. While re-entering the earth’s atmosphere the thermal system experienced a lot of heat buildup and this caused the shuttle to explode. An investigation by the Columbia Accident Investigation determined that some engineers had doubts about the foam and tile used during launch. Since these areas of concern where not discussed with a specific purpose, management did not listen. This breakdown in communication resulted in another failed shuttle launch and historic tragedy. These two examples show us that at both times NASA needed a better way to communicate between their engineers and management. There was a lack of communication and understanding between both parties. Was it the engineers fault for not presenting the information according to their audience in mind? There are some that have this opinion. One could also argue that management did not review their information thoroughly, because of their purpose to launch. There can be cases made for both sides. In an event of this magnitude all levels of communication should have been covered thoroughly. Working in the Information Technology field this is something I go through daily.
While working as an IT Support Specialist, communication was very important aspect of my job. One year ago I was responsible for updating the software for 50 computers in the finance department. The update could only take place while the end user was logged into the computer. This caused problems for me because the workers in the finance department all had different schedules. Being able to meet with everyone in a single day was not possible. My supervisor wanted me to just walk to each person’s desk and see if they were available. Instead to coordinate each update, I sent an email to each user asking a time and date they were available. By communicating through email I was able to save valuable time and stay organized. I was able to give my supervisor a definite date in which the task would be complete. From this experience I learned how important communication is when working in the IT field.

The communication ideas of Purpose, Scope and Audience can determine the outcome of an emergency or crisis. Taking a look at the two shuttle disaster shows us this. The information presented by engineers, could have been more concise with a purpose to stop both shuttle launches. They also could have supported their claims with more data seeing as upper management was their audience. It is important to take these ideas into account with a situation that can have a serious outcome. We must communicate with a clear purpose, so that our intended audience can understand. The engineers were not only concerned the shuttle launch would be a failure, but more importantly people’s lives were at risk. Management was not able to understand that not only the shuttle launch would fail, but that there was a danger behind it.