Introduction
The given prompt outlines the difference between advocacy and inquiry using the example of the Challenger’s case. It is agreeable that the two concepts differ. Indeed, whereas advocacy mainly refers to activities that support an idea in an attempt to influence a decision based on personal or group bias, inquiry refers to a solution-seeking approach where the pros and cons of different options are considered before a final decision is made (Kahneman & Charan, 2013). In the Challenger case, parallel thinking by de Bono would have applied better as compared to the advocacy approach that was employed. First, the fact that advocacy aims to get an idea passed regardless of the consequences (Paul & Elder, 2014), was the wrong decision-making approach as it led to the death of 7 people. It is clear that the decision-making process was also not complete due to the nature of advocacy.
Main body
Paul and Elder (2014) argue that advocacy is sometimes perceived to be more democratic than other processes of decision-making. However, it is important to note that this method of decision-making only presents one side of the argument. Levels III and IV of the management team were responsible for deciding to launch the Space Challenger Shuttle. Ideally, one can state that the managers involved formed a quorum to make such a decision. Thus, no other influence was made. It is this team that used the advocacy approach to convince other management teams of the benefits of launching the shuttle. Indeed, to do so, the team had to withhold vital information on the faulty O-Rings. It is the said faulty O-Ring that eventually led to the crashing of the space shuttle.
The argument that parallel thinking would have been a better decision-making approach as compared to advocacy is supported by the fact that parallel thinking supports the inquiry approach as well (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2015). De Bono’s parallel thinking involves the division of an idea into several angles. Different teams then take up the different aspects and thoroughly investigate their pros and cons. After the investigations, the teams join up and agree on one way to deal with the situation at hand. The nature of parallel thinking by default also gives it an inquiry approach. There are two levels of inquiry in the stated case. The first would be inquiry at the team level. Where each team has to use the stated approach to determine the pros and cons of the angle of the decision they are investigating. The second level of inquiry is at the management level. The management level involves all the relevant persons including management members who were not involved in the team investigations. A presentation would then be made from the different teams that were involved. It is important to mention that such submissions should be honest and should not withhold any information to allow the larger group to understand all possible outcomes of the decision. A final decision combining all the different angles would then be reached.
Conclusion
It can be argued that such thorough investigations and decision-making processes might be affected by time. Indeed, decision-making should be timely to be effective. Thus, even in the inquiry approach, the involved have to be time conscious. One might argue that the level III and IV management teams used the advocacy approach because it requires less time and bureaucracy. Overall, it cost NASA its reputation and led to the death of 7 people. The public outcry was justified as NASA had other options that were ignored.
References
Hammond, S. J., Keeney, L. R., & Raiffa, H. (2015). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Kahneman, D., & Charan, R. (2013). HBR’s 10 must reads on making smart decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The miniature guide to critical thinking – concepts and tools (thinker’s guide) (7th ed). Sacramento, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking