The explosion that happened in King’s Cross

There are many reasons that can be linked to the blast that took place in King's Cross and killed many people. The switch alerted Philip Brickel (employee) early enough while gathering tickets for an inflamed tissue. The fire was observed. Brickel used the Gazette to delay the fire without further review or warning. He did not even know who to say with details about the likelihood of a fire because it was done by another agency. There are several procedures in the company that ensure that every person never steps on each other's doors. Even with the presence of the fire extinguishers, no employee knew how to handle them due to conflicts between them. Fifteen minutes from the first notice, a passenger saw some smoke coming from the escalator which triggered the safety inspector to check. He never saw any smoke, and in line with the underground unwritten rules, he did not call the fire brigade since they were not to be notified without necessity. Later the police contacted the fire extinguishers which were on the way to the place to catch the train home. The safety manager went to the escalator room where the sprinkler system was kept trying to put off the fire, but unfortunately no one was trained to use them since it was not part of their department. He walked to the machine room trying to solve the solution but the heat was about to overcome him, and it was already out of control. The fire was spreading at a very higher rate with a lot of gust of air into the station. Since it was on an evening and everyone was hurrying to get home, the place was flooded with people. Few hours from the notice of the tissue burning, an explosion at an exit pathway was heard. It took hours to put out the fire due to the station rules since they indicated that the hoses could not be connected to the underground but should be done on the street-level hydrants with no employee showing the layout of the station. The damage caused as well as the deaths can be blamed on very many things such as the rules of the station, ignorance, lack of communication or proper governance. But the victims just needed one clarification, why did the station fail to take charge.

Perspective of Organization Effectiveness

Open system effectiveness

The perspective defines an organization as a complex organism which depends on the external environment for resources and affects it through their outputs. It also comprises the internal subsystem which transforms the inputs to outputs. According to the perspective, the organization is fit when the inputs, the processes as well as the outputs are well aligned with the expectations and the needs of the external environment. The company good fit is maintained through three ways, first by changing the products and services on the customer’s feedback. Secondly, is through the management of the external environment through marketing or lobbying the legislature. Finally, through the change of the market or business location, the environment is in good fit (Berkhout, Hertin, Gann, 2006).

Organization learning perspective

According to this point of view, the organization effectiveness is dependent on the company's ability to acquire, share, use and store valuable knowledge. The intellectual capital is the stock which comprises the structural, human and related assets. On the other hand, the Human capital is defined as the skills and the abilities which provide the economic value to the employees. Knowledge is essential in the company which enhances the skills by ensuring that the economic value of the company is improved.

High-performance work practices perspectives

The perspective holds that the human capital which is inclusive of the knowledge and skills are the key source of competitive advantage in every organization. There are four key factors which affect the organization performance. They first factor is the decision making as well as giving the employees the autonomy of work activities which motivates them and enable them to contribute in making decisions. Secondly, the job autonomy and the employee involved in the organization activities. Thirdly, is the employee competence development which includes employing, selecting and training people in the company on the skills to make them better for the improved organization performance. Finally, the performance is affected by linking the personal development and performance to the financial and non-financial reward (Berkhout, Hertin, Gann, 2006).

Stakeholder perspective

All other aspects highly focus on the resources as well as the products in an organization. On the other hand, this one will highly focus on the relationship between everyone with a share or stake in the company. They comprise the government, labor unions, stakeholders, communities, the interesting groups in the environment as well as the suppliers. The perspective requires that the organization manage the needs of the interested parties in the company. The actions in the organization should be aligned with the need and the expectations of the stakeholders following the perspective (Berkhout, Hertin, Gann, 2006).

Case example in line with the perspectives

The open-system perspective was implemented in the London underground since it operated following the needs and expectations of the external environment. It was dependent on the external environment through the acquisition of resources which were essential in the operation of the station trains. On the other hand, it affected the customers by the provision of services which can attribute to the increase in number traveling through them.
It did not implement the organization learning perspective. The case study indicates that there was some fire escalator sprinkler which could be very useful in putting off the fire, but the employees were not trained in operating them. The organization was not able to train and equip their staffs on skills that could keep the place safe.
High-performance work practices perspectives were not implemented in the case study since the employees were not involved in the decision making. There were a lot of protocols in the station which hindered most of them to respond. The employee seems to be in the dark on some matters and unmotivated to report some essential case. The employee is not involved in the decision making since they have to enquire from the top-ranked officials of emergency issues.
Finally, there is no implementation of the shareholders perspective. Customers are the key stakeholder in the organization, and all decisions should be made based on their needs and expectation. They expect to be protected from any harm, and all decision should be based on their welfare ignoring some perspective. When making some decisions especially on safety, the organization failed to put some factors into consideration. The poor decision made can be attributed as the primary factor for the damage caused in the case study.

Sources of power

There are two key sources of power; position and the set rules. The four barons seem to have a lot of authority over the organization's decisions which drove them to make rules that hindered effective communication. The rules set were so powerful such that they have to be adhered to even in times of emergency. During this particular case, the employees were unable to use fire extinguishers due to the lack of skills that was attributed to the department desire to avoid conflicts. Also, the rules and protocols set are said to have hindered the fire extinguishing process making it take more than 6hrs to accomplish the mission.

Sources of conflict

Conflict in the case is evident which hinders effective communication. First, the conflict can be attributed to lack of proper communication between the employees and the management. When Phillip Brickel saw an inflamed tissue, he was not concerned about the source, but he just switched it off since he did not have information about the same, and it is also stated that even if he knew, he could not know who to report to. Lack of information is attributed to poor communication. Education and skills equipment is achieved through a good relationship which is achieved through frequent communication in open meetings. The second source of conflict is power. The four barons do not desire to work together, and they operate wishing not to step over each other's boundaries. Safety should be everyone’s priority, but in this perspective, they failed to train the employees since they did not belong to a particular department.

References

Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., & Gann, D. M. (2006). Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic change, 78(1), 135-156.