Question

In 2014, the U.S. Air Force was rocked by a widespread cheating scandal at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Before they go on duty with U.S. nuclear-armed intercontinental balistic missile, officers are trained in classrooms and simulators. Each month, nuclear missile launch officers ("missileers") are required to take a 20-30 question knowledge test in each of three subjects: weapons systems, code handling, and emergency war orders. In order to pass, they must attain a minimum score of 90%.

An investigation found that officers shared answers to the monthly proficiency tests, largely by the use of smart phones. Approximately half of the base's 183 missileers were implicated in the scandal -- having either been directly accused of cheating or having been aware of the cheating and failing to report it.  Ultimately, the Air Force fired 9 mid-level commanders, disciplined dozens of junior officers, and accepted the resignation of the commander at the Malmstrom Air Force Base.

  

The Air Force secretary, Deborah Lee James, suggested that a "climate of fear" may have led missileers to share answers to the tests. She said that crew members -- while not admitting to cheating -- told her that they felt pressure to score 100% on the proficiency tests, and there existed the perception their careers would be derailed if they did not score 100% on the knowledge tests.

Ultimately, the Air Force simplified the way it grades missileers by making the monthly certification tests pass-fail.

In your opinion,

• Who is/are most responsible for this cheating scandal? The missileers who shared the answers to the monthly proficiency exams? The missileers who used the shared answers to cheat on the monthly proficiency tests? The missileers who were aware of the cheating and failed to report it? Those in leadership positions that created the "climate of fear"?

• Is the behavior of any of the missileers who cheated justified in any way by the organizational culture or "climate of fear" described by Secretary James? Why or why not?

• Do you agree with the Air Force's decision to make the monthly certification exams pass/fail? Why or why not?  

• What other steps can the Air Force take to improve the organizational culture at Malmstrom Air Force Base

Answer 1

1..   I accept that everybody included is answerable for the duping outrage. The officials who shared the test answers did as such to help their individual officials. The mid-level authorities are liable for putting such a great amount of weight on officials to breeze through the assessment, rather than offering approaches to help study. The missileers who utilized the mutual responses to finish the assessment are capable on the grounds that they comprehended what they were doing wasn't right however their dread of fizzling constrained them to conflict with their ethics.

2..   The missileers who tricked unquestionably have some defense. The dread of coming up short didn't actually make them cheat yet put weight on them to breeze through the assessment regardless. The missileers had their activity at stake as well as their job too. The missileers were pondering their future, family, and objectives. That by itself can put enough weight on anybody to conflict with what they know is correct.

3..   Pass or failtests can have a specific hazy area that could settle on this choice tricky. In the event that a missileer was to bomb after this change was actualized they wouldn't realize the amount, they flopped by which can make confounding on the best way to improve later on.

4..   The strain to breeze through the capability assessment with an ideal score ought to be expelled from the way of life. The information test is significant, however, a missileer's future profession shouldn't be controlled by the outcomes. The Air Force ought to most likely actualize more involved field tests. This will bolster genuine circumstances that can't be copied on a test. Hands-on preparing strengthens the preparation that the missileers learned in the study hall and let them apply the goals in a controlled situation. This methodology can likewise lift uneasiness and uncertainty when the missileers need to utilize their preparation to respond in a real occasion