The Space Shuttle Challenger case
For this response, consider the Space Shuttle Challenger case and address the following questions:
1.What factors do you think weighed most heavily in Morton-Thiokol’s decision to okay the Challenger launch?
2.Determine whether Morton-Thiokol used a Stockholder or a Stakeholder model when they made the decision, and argue for that position.
3.What decision would you have made if you were a Morton-Thiokol manager in this situation?
4.Is there anything that Roger Boisjoly could have done differently in his circumstances?
5.Should he have been more loyal to his company when he was questioned by the Rogers Commission?
If you’re tempted to say that he should have kept his mouth shut in order to protect Morton-Thiokol’s reputation, you’ll need to explain why their reputation deserves to be protected.
If you think that they have some right to protect themselves from Boisjoly’s whistle-blowing (maybe by firing him) then you’ll need to explain why they have a right to protect themselves from someone who is telling the truth (which is often a good thing to do).
Sample Solution
The Space Shuttle Challenger case
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was a fatal incident in the United States` space program that occurred on January 28, 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-099) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven crew members aboard. The crew consisted of five NASA astronauts, and two payload specialists. The mission carried the designation STS-51-L and was the tenth flight for the Challenger orbiter. The factors that weighed most heavily in Morton-Thiokol`s decision to okay the Challenger launch was money loss and the jobs that were on stake. By delaying the launch, money would have been lost and the company would have had to spend more time and money on fixing the flaws.
