You are on page 1of 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 nonrenewable 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.