NASA vs SpaceX

SpaceX and NASA are two aeronautic space companies that are currently in a competition to reach Mars. Top Managers directly impact a business or organization’s success through the use of Fayol’s four functions; planning, organizing, leading and controlling (Windsor 2004). This is evident in the organizations SpaceX and NASA where the top manager’s use of the functions is detrimental to a company’s success. SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk in 2002, is an aerospace company pushing the forefront of space exploration (Vance 2015). They have successfully revolutionizing the industry by slashing the cost of rocket production via reusable rockets and in-house development. Musk, accredited for SpaceX’s success, is the CEO and CTO of SpaceX. NASA, headed by Robert M. Lightfoot (NASA Content Administrator 2012), is an independent agency of the US federal government formed in 1958 (Launius 2003). NASA today lacks innovation and strong management, forcing them to rely on other countries and companies like SpaceX to do basic tasks like restocking the international space station (Government Accountability Office 2011). Success in the aeronautics industry is deemed by the innovation and exploration done by the organization. This essay will argue that NASA has unsuccessfully utilized Fayol’s four functions in comparison to SpaceX who have effectively used these functions, leading to their success.

Planning is deciding the direction of a company and devising a plan on how to get there (Wren, Bedeain and Breeze 2002). One distinct difference between SpaceX and NASA is Musk’s incredible drive for the future described as visionary (Belfiore 2013). SpaceX’s near ridiculous dream is to reduce the cost of space flight by creating reusable rockets and ultimately allow everyday citizens to travel to and colonize Mars (Belfiore 2013). The goals of SpaceX are clear and precise, every single employee in the company is working towards this goal. Furthermore, SpaceX has a clear strategy planned to achieve their goals (Gage 2014). They are first starting with missions to restock the ISS, International Space Station, and missions for private companies putting satellites into orbit to raise funds for future missions. The revenue earnt launches them towards their ultimate goal of reducing the cost of space flight to allow humans to reach mars (Mattise 2017). An example of SpaceX’s successful planning is in the development and operation of the Falcon 9 rocket which is the first ever reusable rocket (Powell 2013). SpaceX’s goal was to design a reusable rocket and they successfully achieved their objective demonstrating their planning ability. Similarly to SpaceX, NASA also aim to reach Mars. In comparison NASA lacks drive and a vision being described as having limited launch abilities and questionable ambition (Vance 2015). NASA lacks the planning to achieve their goal with their path to mars being described as questionable with many obstacles distracting from the intended goal (Gage 2014). An example of where NASA failed to plan was in 2008 when NASA relied on an outside contractor to resupply the ISS this mission ultimately failed leaving NASA unable to deliver supplies to the astronauts in space (Government Accountability Office 2011). This significant difference between SpaceX and NASA reveals that through Fayol’s function of planning SpaceX’s clearer plan for the future and steps to get there aid in their success over NASA.

Fayol’s function organization can be described as organizing physical, human and financial resources in order to achieve objectives (Taneja and Pryor 2010). SpaceX utilizes Fayol’s function of organization, arranging their offices in an open plan to maximize communication (Musk 2010). The open space allows for faster problem solving, increased communication between different departments and a general sense of comradery (Vance 2015). Furthermore, SpaceX builds 80% of their rockets in-house with just 6000 staff (SpaceX 2017). This shows that the delegation of physical resources allows them to optimize the amount of work done by the company resulting in reduced costs. NASA fails to organize its 17381 staff (Dunbar 2017) and has turned to outsourcing for their projects (Roberts 2004). Recent US Senate Appropriations subcommittee recommendations leave NASA without domestic launching capabilities this results in an increasing independence on private companies and other nations (Bendemra 2015). Without being able to launch themselves NASA’s dependence on outsourcing can leave them standard like in June 2015 when a rocket due to resupply the ISS exploded, NASA could do nothing but ask the contractor what went wrong and when can we next launch (Bendemra 2015). The work environment at SpaceX is demanding with long work hours expected. Singh, a former employee, accurately describes it when he said “Diamonds are created under pressure, and Elon Musk is a master diamond maker.” (Feloni 2014). In comparison NASA has mixed reviews with the general consensus being that it is laid back often at a slow working pace (Glassdoor 2017). The comparison shows a difference in the working culture between the two companies with SpaceX being an environment that’s constantly striving while NASA takes it easy. SpaceX’s clear use of organization of staff allows for them to outperform NASA with fewer staff.

Fayol’s function of leading encompasses a manager’s ability to motivate employees in order to achieve a goal or objective (Lamond 2003). SpaceX had to overcome 3 launch failures before having success. During those trying times Musk’s use of leadership prevailed. Singh, an employee at SpaceX, recalled Musk’s motivation, “It went from despair to hope and focus” (Vance 2015, 199). Musk’s has been described as a visionary leader with an impressive list of accomplishments however he has some deep personal flaws (Dobbs 2016). Musk’s most significant flaw is a lack of loyalty towards his staff. Musk views the world in a different way, he believes that his endeavor to save the human race cannot be jeopardized by personal loyalties (Dobbs 2016). Although many of Musk’s past employees are disgruntled they still respect his work ethic, drive and dream (Vance 2015). Musk really demands the most from his employees and for some that is too much to handle. Alternatively, NASA has no figurehead leader to rally behind which impacts their success in the industry. Instead they have an associate administrator Robert M. Lightfoot. To the detriment of the organization the president at any point and can appoint a new leader, this leads to instability and constant change in vision (B. Jones 2017). Lightfoot is extremely accomplished and shares a similar passion with Musk to get to mars (STATE OF ALABAMA ENGINEERING HALL OF FAME 2010). Musk uses Fayol’s function of leadership to motivate his employees and drive towards his goal. In comparison Lightfoot is more concerned about maintaining his job when the next president gets elected forcing him to focus on the goals of the higher powers.

Fayol’s function of control requires a manager to measure achievement against predetermined goals and objectives (Norman 2017). SpaceX displays exceptional feed forward control when planning their budget. They have achieved a positive cash flow for the last 6 years and have 4.8 billion dollars’ worth of flights booked over the next 5 years (Gage 2014). In comparison NASA has no forward feed control as all of their funding comes from the government and they don’t work on a profit (Lewin 1994). Furthermore, SpaceX successfully used feedback control, after their first 3 rocket launch failures. They determined that the design of the x-33's fuel tank was the cause of the failure (Government Accountability Office 2011). SpaceX successfully mitigated the failure by going back and redesign the fuel tank to withstand the vibrations that caused it to fail the first time (Werner 2011) .Through successful implementation of the feedback loop SpaceX has successfully launched every rocket since their initial 3 failures (Etherington 2017). In comparison when NASA’s rocket challenger failed the feedback revealed that the failure causing death arose from outside political pressure and cut corners in the production process (Harkins, et al. 2016). Instead of resolving the problem NASA shutdown the program and is no longer capable of manned missions (Vance 2015). SpaceX utilizes Fayol’s function of control through feed forward and feedback to help achieve success while NASA ineffectively uses these functions.

It is evident that SpaceX utilizes Fayol’s functions; planning, organizing, leading and controlling in operating a successful business (Nienaber, Goldman and Pretorius 2015). NASA has ineffectively used Fayol’s functions resulting in outsourcing and a lack of vision. Through poor planning NASA has failed missions and continues to fail setting goals for the future. The lack of discipline and focus steaming from organizational problems at NASA has resulted in too many staff being used ineffectively forcing the reliance on outsourcing. The leadership uncertainty at NASA and the constant threat of interference from higher powers negatively effects NASA’s drive towards their goals. NASA’s lack of control over their budget and negligence shown towards feedback leaves the organization in a downward spiral. In comparison SpaceX has clear planning and vision shown through their ability to invent then implement a reusable rocket. Organization at SpaceX leads to their success through open floor plan to allow open communication which increases productivity. SpaceX has a strong leader in Elon Musk who is admired within the company by all workers, he effectively keeps the staff motivated and focused on the company goals. SpaceX effectively utilizes feedforward control and feedback control, this is demonstrated respectively through their excellent budget and their ability to learn from their mistakes. It is evident through these two organizations that when a top manager successfully utilizes Fayol’s four Functions that they directly lead to a successful business.

Bibliography
Belfiore, Micheal. 2013. "The Rocketeer." Foreign Policy, suppl. Annual Special Issue 102-103,8.
Bendemra, Hamza. 2015. "NASA’s reliance on outsourcing launches causes a dilemma for the space agency." The Conversation Media Group, July 3: 3.
Dobbs, Micheal E. 2016. "Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future." Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 83-85.
Dunbar, Brian. 2017. What Is NASA? August 4. Accessed August 16, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-nasa-58.html.
Etherington, Darrell. 2017. "SpaceX successfully launches its 12th Falcon 9 rocket of 2017." TechCrunch, August 24.
Feloni, Richard. 2014. "A Former SpaceX Employee Explained What It's Like To Work For Elon Musk." Business Insider Australia, June 25.
Gage, Douglas W. 2014. "Stepping Stones, Detours, and Potholes on the Flexible Path to Mars." Washington Academy of Sciences. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 19-36.
Glassdoor. 2017. NASA. Accessed September 17, 2017. https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/NASA-work-environment-Reviews-EI_IE7304.0,4_KH5,21.htm?countryRedirect=true.
Government Accountability Office. 2011. "NASA: COMMERCIAL PARTNERS ARE MAKING PROGRESS BUT FACE AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULES TO DEMONSTRATE CRITICAL SPACE STATION CARGO TRANSPORT CAPABILITIES." Journal of Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Research 75-101.
Harkins, Kyle, Mark Allen, Cecilia Carpenter, and Tiffany Dydak. 2016. "Causes of Project Failure: Case Study of NASA Space Shuttle Challenger." Journal of Engineering and Economic Development 23-31.
Jones, Brad. 2017. "Politicians and Scientists Are Concerned About President Trump’s Pick for NASA Leader." Futurism, September 17.
Jones, G, J George, M Barrett, and B Honing. 2016. Contemporary Management. North Ryde, NSW: McGraw hill.
Lamond, David. 2003. "Henry Mintzberg vs Henri Fayol: Of Lighthouses, Cubists and the Emperor's New Clothes." Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 5-23.
Launius, Roger D. 2003. ""We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming": NASA, oral hisotry, and the comtemporary past." The Oral History Review 111-128.
Lewin, David I. 1994. "NASA's future unsettled." Mechanical Engineering 36.
Mattise, Nathan. 2017. "A high profile SpaceX investor tells a datacenter crowd why he believes in Musk." ARS Technica.
Musk, Elon. 2010. Elon's SpaceX Tour - Offices (November 11).
NASA Content Administrator . 2012. Robert M. Lightfoot Jr., Acting Administrator. September 25. Accessed September 17, 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/lightfoot_bio.html.
Nienaber, Hester, Geoff A Goldman, and Marius Pretorius. 2015. "THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTEMPORARY BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: A CRITICAL REFLECTION." Journal of Global Business and Technology 1-13.
Norman, Leyla. 2017. "What Are the Four Basic Functions That Make Up the Management Process?" Chron, 1.
Powell, Devin. 2013. "Commercial space race heats up." Nature 18.
Roberts, Alasdair. 2004. "The Reform Bubble Bursts." Public Administration Review.
SpaceX. 2017. SpaceX. Accessed August 16, 2017. http://www.spacex.com/about.
STATE OF ALABAMA ENGINEERING HALL OF FAME. 2010. ROBERT M. LIGHTFOOT JR. Accessed September 17, 2017. http://aehof.eng.ua.edu/members/robert-m-lightfoot-jr/.
Taneja, Sonia, and Mildred Golden Pryor. 2010. "Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician - revered and reviled." Journal of Management History 489-503.
Vance, Ashlee. 2015. Elon Musk. New York: Harper Collins.
Werner, Debra. 2011. "Price pressure." C4ISR 24.
Windsor, Duane. 2004. "Leadership in Administration." International Review of Public Administration 12.
Wren, Daniel A, Arthor B Bedeain, and John D Breeze. 2002. "The foundations of Henri Fayol's administrative theory." Management Decision 906-918.