Various organizations have different approaches to the way they operate. It can be even claimed that the performance of the operations is under the constant influence from various internal and external sources. For example, the way organizational culture affects the management of resources at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is discussed by three professionals in two articles. They believe that in this particular situation, the culture just made the process of management more complicated.
In his article, Dennis Fitzgerald discusses the application of NRO’s resources with the purpose of national security enhancement (9). Edmund Nowinski and Robert Kohler, in their turn, pay more attention to the analysis of program management. They take into consideration not only personal views but also those provided by Fitzgerald (Nowinski and Kohler 9).
According to the information received from these two sources, the culture of the organization has much influence on the manager and the way he/she performs duties. NRO turned out to be focused on creativity and innovativeness while the culture is risk averse. Such cultural peculiarities made NRO push technological boundaries. The focus on the breakthrough seems to be advantageous, but it made the leaders make risky decisions. Moreover, it increased organizational costs, which then required reconsideration of finances.
Extreme focus on effectiveness and efficiency resulted in the design of a flexible application of resources. Initially, it could have been advantageous, as provided an opportunity to adjust operations to the particular situation. Still, it turned out to be rather complex from the management perspective, as there was no decent general guideline that could be used to streamline and simplified the process. As a result, the leaders had to take risks and funding depended on the tolerance of the authorities mainly, which was rather subjunctive.
It was also very critical that product lines received more attention than the personnel. Being not really interested in the needs of the staff and the way they treat their work, and leadership made the gap between managers and employees more vivid.
The necessity to promote the culture of pride, feeling a part of a big unity, creativity, and product priority affected career development program and made it rather complex. Even though it was unofficial, the employees had to prove the enhancement of their technical skills and knowledge during 5 stages. Such approach was costly and entailed technical and schedule issues, which proves it to be not good enough.
The information about the connection between culture and management of the resources was similar in two articles. Still, they are totally different from each other. Fitzgerald’s source seems to be more authoritative than the work prepared by Nowinski and Kohler because it is written with the reference to historical information with almost no personal biased ideas. It provides the readers with materials but not interpretations. Until the end of the paper, they have an opportunity to assess the work themselves.
Still, authoritativeness does not always mean persuasiveness. Nowinski and Kohler made their article more persuasive than Fitzgerald because it is written from the first person, which appeals to the readers. This source includes the information from the other works and evaluates it. Professionals used various sources to prove their claims and make the work look like a collection of their personal ideas. The readers are likely to make use of both articles, but it seems to be beneficial to start with Fitzgerald’s work and then try another source, as its seems to explain some information that was not pointed out previously, drawing conclusions and sorting the information.
Works Cited
Fitzgerald, Dennis. Risk Management and National Reconnaissance from the Cold War Up to the Global War on Terrorism, 2003. Web.
Nowinski, Edmund, and Robert Kohler. The Lost Art of Program Management in the Intelligence Community: A View of How We Manage, 2015. Web.