8/2/2019 Organizational Diagnosis Assignment 1_G Anil

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organizational-diagnosis-assignment-1g-anil 1/1

G Anil

Section E

Organizational Diagnosis – Assignment 1

Submitted to: Prof. Kirti Sharda

Topic: Is Nuclear power more Important than the risk involved

Description 

There were two participants who are part of this discussion. One of the participants was in support of Nuclear

energy and believed that this is the faster way to make India efficient in energy. The other participant was against

Nuclear energy and felt that the risk involved in nuclear energy was too high and preferred renewable sources of 

energy.

Details of the Discussion

The discussion was related to many of the incidents in recent past and lot of factual data was involved in the

discussion. The discussion talked about the cost effectiveness of using nuclear energy when compared to other non-

renewable sources of energy. The zero emission and sustainability was considered to be its added advantage.

To counter the advantages, examples of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was taken to show the drastic side effects it

could lead to in case of a natural disaster. The disposal of nuclear waste issue was also brought into discussion to

strengthen the argument. Use of renewable energy such as solar was stressed to meet the energy needs.

What worked well

The discussion reflected on some of the recent incidents and the things we could learn from them. There was equal

opportunity for both the parties to make their point and convince the other person. Some of the well known facts

were used very well to make their point more effectively.

The feedback given for the first discussion was taken well and most of the suggestions were implemented.

Discussion after feedback was centred towards building on a point and not to counter others point with a new

argument.

What did not work Well

The discussion was mostly centred on stating same points with different examples. Both the participants were

interested in telling new points to support their argument but there was no initiative to take a point and build on it.

Some of the facts stated during the argument were baseless and were just used to convince the other participant.

No opportunity was given by either of the participant to come to a consensus.

During the second discussion after the feedback, both the participants wanted to implement all the feedback that

was given, but the discussion was more focussed on coming to some consensus without mutually agreement on all

the major points.

Learnings

Unless there is a clear objective defined for the discussion, it resulted in wasting precious time on unnecessary

points. If the participants are aware of the points of the other participant then discussion becomes more structured

and baseless facts are avoided. This was seen in the second discussion and in actual scenario could be achieved by

looking at both the pros and cons of an argument. The point of building on an argument helped the discussion to be

more structured.