Management in the “Apollo 13” Movie by Ron Howard Essay (Movie Review)

The adaptive challenge was the astronauts’ ability to face and solve the unexpected problems that they encountered in space. Kranz, the lead flight director, was the man left at the command center and was, therefore, in charge of the crew the day Apollo 13 was launched into space. The astronauts had to come up with ways of surviving with minimal oxygen, limited space, and working with no heat and power. All these problems were caused by the explosion of the second oxygen tank as the astronauts entered the space¹. The explosion led to further damage to the first tank, rendering the crew helpless and forcing them to adapt.

Kranz, on his part, faced the huge challenge of making sure that the rocket was able to cruise safely back to earth after the failure of its navigation system and erroneous calculations². He was forced to make time splitting decisions on how the crew in space would be able to navigate back to earth with the help of the sun’s altitude, as well as how they were supposed to power up their rocket after the explosion. Even though he faced many challenges and was under a lot of pressure, both from the media and the terrified astronauts in space, he was able to keep calm so as to ensure they return back home safely.

The conflict of goals was that NASA and its employees were so focused on meeting the schedule for the flight to space that they did not take time to evaluate the core areas of functionality. This conflict was clearly seen when Kranz took responsibility and said that the failure of the trip was due to all the team members.

Thus, if they had unity of goals, then the team from engineering, design, and simulation would have worked hand in hand, and they would have been able to foresee all the problems that Apollo 13 faced since most of them were due to the carelessness³. This reaction brings out an important trait of Kranz as a leader when he took responsibility for failure but came up with measures to ensure the astronauts were able to navigate safely back to earth.

The first DLM capability refers to sensemaking in solving a problem faced by a leader. Kranz used this capability driven by plausibility since he was not in space, and he could only try to infer what the astronauts were facing up there after the catastrophic failure and explosion. Thus, one of the most relevant tools he used was re-framing. Kranz had already simulated how it would be during the flight and after the astronauts landed in space, as well as their trip back, but now he faced a new challenge since they had encountered misfortunes that were not part of the simulation⁴.

Thus, it was this tool that helped him try and figure the conditions out there and how he could successfully advise the crew to ensure the situation was overcome. More so, one of the guiding variables was the sun’s position in relation to the space ship, which was relevant in determining the right trajectory for the crew to land on earth safely since a slight mistake could make them orbit to death.

The second DLM capability used by Kranz was relating. It was during this phase that he was able to inquire from his team on what their thoughts about the situation at hand were and the type of solutions available for them to be able to save the astronauts in space. Furthermore, he connected with the team members by taking responsibility for all the failures and, in the process, gained their trust⁵. This was important since it enabled him to advocate for the astronauts to share the same cabin in the space ship so as to be able to survive.

Furthermore, he carefully guided them on the right procedures to power the space ship back, as well as head it back to earth. The relevant tool he used was the ability to understand the holding environment, both at the command center and the one being faced by the astronauts in space. It was through such an understanding that he was able to diffuse the tension among the media, command center, astronauts, and the public.

The third capability in DLM is the ability to visualize. This was the capability that was not fully utilized since even though Kranz and his team had a compelling vision of the trip to space, they did not foresee the misfortunes likely to take place. Thus, their vision was limited in terms of threats to the trip. The values, not carefully met and given a priority such as simulation, design, and testing, constrained the vision since they could avert some of the misfortunes that took place, especially the explosion.

The last capability is inventing, and Kranz was able to help his crew to overcome the fear by using Lewin’s model of change that advocates for a three-stage process of unfreezing, transitioning, and stabilization. He came up with creative ways of navigation, such as depending on the sun’s position to navigate, which ensured the crew got back to earth safely⁶.

Bibliography

Hemphill, John. Situational Factors in Leadership. Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Educational Research, 2007.

Kluger, Jeffrey and James Lowell. Apollo 13. Boston: Mariner Books, 2006.

Kranz, Gene. Failure Is Not an Option. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.

Lena, William. No Room for Fear. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010.

Montana, Patrick. Management. New York: Barron’s Educational Series Inc, 2008.

Footnotes

1. William Lena. No Room for Fear. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2010), 255.
2. Jeffrey Kluger and James Lowell. Apollo 13. (Boston: Mariner Books, 2006). 78
3. Gene Kranz. Failure Is Not an Option. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), 67.
4. Ibid.
5. John Hemphill. Situational Factors in Leadership. (Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Educational Research, 2007), 98.
6. Patrick Montana. Management. (New York: Barron’s Educational Series Inc, 2008). 78.