Employee Resourcing on Boeing - Case Study Example

Employee Resourcing - Boeing A company or an organization needs sound management framework at its top so that the staff and the employees working atdifferent levels feel at ease with the job as well as the working environment. This indeed is very important as it builds long-term credibility of the organization that it cares about its employees and not just the customers and in case profits and revenues only. A formal organization takes into account the role of leadership at the top and the manner in which this leadership is basically carried about, both in the interests of the people within the company as well as the company itself so that the end result is one on which everyone solemnly agree, that is to make the company thrive from a revenue-generating angle and image building aspect in the long run. The change in the organizations' strategies as well as structures guarantee that the company is present and willing to do more than just provide products and services to the end consumers. It wants to make the people realize that the company is there and wants to do its very best by tailoring its strategies in such a manner that can only benefit them nonetheless. After all, a company or an organization without the target people is nothing more than an office set up with employees and employers working for no one, at the end of the day. Organization is a body of working people, having various types of persons with heterogeneous behaviors interlink with corporate goals and objectives. This cluster of people is grouped in different categories according to their working importance, caliber and productivity at various hierarchical levels. Before we overview the concept of organizational structuring and its impact on employees, lets see the type of organizational structures first. "The established pattern of relationships between the component parts of an organization, outlining both communication, control and authority patterns. Structure distinguishes the parts of an organization and delineates the relationship between them". (Wilson and Rosenfeld, 1990) "The formal pattern of interactions and coordination designed by management to link the tasks of individuals and groups in achieving organizational goals". (Bartol and Martin, 1994) Structuring helps companies to achieve some specific goals: OS provides good business support to business objectives and improves efficiency, profitability, cost allocation, communication and application of policies of company. OS promotes and develops good corporate culture OS helps companies to create employee directions, responsibilities and systems. Line and Staff's clarity of function is also facilitated with OS By all measures, restructuring is a redefining organizational boundary that encompasses a number of different businesses related social and/or marketing objectives. It is a common occurrence that when changes are applied in essence, a number of these people would not digest the same fact in a welcoming manner, in spite of their personal likes and dislikes which they show in the wake of having a changing regime. Usually people show different kinds of change accepting attitudes and this is documented by the fact that they respond in varied manners so to speak. Thus on the basis of their attitudes which they have in line with the development, innovation and adaptation towards new aspects of life, they are usually put into a number of different segments: Innovators (about 2-3%): Are those people who are always open to change, regardless of the nature of change, they end up welcoming it. These people help change's survival even in very crucial circumstances. Early Adopters (10-15%): A bit mature generation of innovators who like innovation but wait till things get into clear shape. Will join the change in early phase but are not jump starters like innovators. Early Majority (30-40%): People who join as pragmatics who rely upon proven wisdom. They contribute to a majority number in masses who join change at any stage. Late Majority (30-40%): These people are mature enough in their behavior and will only change if all others have changed and accepted the change. They join when there is no other choice available better than adapting to the change itself. Laggards (1-2%): Change accepters who just forcibly get into the train as it is about to move. Opposite to innovators, resistance to change in this group is at its extreme. Simply, answer to the question is in the affirmative. However the impact, intensity and long term of effect of change will be different in different cases. There can be various change situations applicable in an organizational structure; some of which are: Redesigning Business Philosophy Policy Adjustments Departmental Transfers and Allocations Geographical Restructuring Changes in Leadership Philosophy and Style Reorganization of Decision Model Restructuring System, Technology, Process and Support Restructuring of Corporate Profile Hierarchical Restructuring From above mentioned restructuring we can see that methods mentioned in bottom have more impact on organization and its people. The reason for the same is that because people adjust to restructuring and changes comfortably that do not affect them in a direct way. But when the matter comes to their own survival, personalities and career; they become reactive and do not tolerate any of these changes easily. Mostly the people show maximum reaction to the change mentioned in the end i.e., hierarchical restructuring which suggests that the same is an applied form of restructuring mostly made use of by companies in different ways. Some of these are labeled as: Down sizing Restructuring Redefining Hierarchy De-Layering All of the above philosophies create a massive reaction among employees. Some times they protest, at other times they get depressed or they quit in the quest of better jobs when even they discern that the company is going to change for one reason or the other. Even then, one cannot deny the importance of reasonable restructuring. When it is needed, it must be planned and implemented in a coordinated way. Some factors, if applied properly can help at having sound business at the time of downsizing and restructuring. Top management should: Explain the purpose of the downsizing; Explain the need for legitimate growth and profitability Explain future plans including detailed plans for restructuring, upgraded technology, or some processes to increase efficiency; Emphasize that laid-off employees will be treated with respect and dignity; this is important for managing and maintaining remaining employees' moral and company commitment. Most importantly, listen carefully to employee concerns and adequately address each concern to whatever degree there is possible. In the year 2001, Boeing announced that it would lay off around 20,000 to 30,000 of its workers who used to provide their services in the commercial airplanes which meant that the Washington state economy was in for a nosedive situation considering its basis in the last two decades. Boeing aimed at spreading these cuts over Washington, California and Kansas where around 60,000 of its 80,000 employees perform their duties in the company's commercial airplane division as a matter of fact. Boeing put all the blame game on the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York which shook the basis of America and did not side with the hypothesis offered for the already weakening economy as well as the hold up in the wake of the airline business. These attacks left the Boeing customers and the different US airlines in a fix and they did not know what to do. Since then different carriers saw the number of passengers drop down considerably and thus they were made to cut own on the tariffs as well as planned schedules. Furthermore, this news left Boeing workers as well as the public officials astounded and they were uncertain of their future. Boeing officials discussed these aspects with their officials who were based in Washington DC and in the Seattle area where they could come up with the specifications for the cuts that had been decided forthwith. One Boeing official was of the view that he expected the region to portray the 20 percent to 30 percent cut when it came to commercial airplane jobs varying on a company to company basis. The layoffs thus envisaged to hit every major commercial jet model and not to forget Boeing's Shared Services Group as this was envisioned to be complete by the year 2002. According to various corporate communications it was pretty evident that Boeing was now being run solely through the operational costs. People gave different opinions in the wake of the same and they were all extremely disappointed at the steps thus taken. There was another impact which happened soon after as the stocks of the company started to fall considerably ever since the news of the massive restructuring broke up. A number of employees did not mind much and somehow or the other digested the very fact of restructuring but the others directed their anger towards the economy. These people comprised of the innovators and the early majority. However there were differences in the views of the people as well. Thus frustration was shared differently by the different people. A number of these people were really analytical of company's decision. Within Boeing's regimes, there was this fear of wide spread downsizing as the employees got to hear about the cut in the jobs. This news brought a sense of disarray to the whole organization and the state's chief economist, Dr. Chang Mook Sohn was astounded to state the least where he exclaimed that this came as a total shocker for him. He went on to suggest that layoffs might have just saved the day for the workers but getting them off the job register for once and for all was something immense and required a great deal of patience on the part of the employees of Boeing. Similar fears were also discussed by Roberta Pauer who was the regional economist at the State Employment Security Department. Roberta was of the view that these kinds of cuts would eventually result in a recession for the national economy and this was a first since 1981-82. One can understand that from this type of distressing situation, Boeing had the following things on its part: A complete lack of understanding related with foreseeing the impact that could be have in the wake of restructuring Failure of Boeing to take its employees and workers into any sort of confidence Was not ready to structure in a proper manner as it did not have prior expertise of the very same Failed to show empathy, sympathy and concern with the employees and workers who were removed from their respective jobs One must notice that even before this lay off, Boeing was run like a conventionally structured company that had its basis on the functional parameters thereby showing a comparatively flat organization within its regimes. However what stood then was more like a vertical organization having a progressive approach more than anything else was. The nightmare was for the employees and this has to be the negative aspect of the restructuring that was done. Organizations need to evolve over a period of time is testimony enough for them to grow within themselves and thus adopt and hold on to a new path altogether, one that will be their torchbearer as well as reap rich dividends for them not only in the present times but also in the future. These strategies are so much in alignment with the future goals and tactical perspectives that they fulfill what is really expected of them, both in terms of short term expectations as well as the long run. Planning is thus the key word here and for any multinational to succeed in the long run, it is of paramount significance to have a safe and sound plan ready and not only that but also be proactive in its approach towards the accomplishment of the plan nonetheless. The basis of all strategies and structural changes that usually happen from time to time is on the shoulders of the top management where they have to decide whether or not the adopted strategy be the source of light in the coming quarters or years for that matter. It is only upon their insistence to have the same within their ranks that the new strategic planning is done in the first place. If the top management is not ready, it is very difficult for the knowledge organization, which really is the middle management of present times, to do even an iota of struggle. The multinationals for that matter depend a lot on the parental concerns, which at times, might be located off shores and there is no easy access to them as well. But then again it is all about finding out what the goals of the real organization are and then following them like the textbook proverb. The structural changes usually happen from time to time and more so without even informing all and sundry but what is more important for the workers and employees within an organization is to know that these changes would bring in more revenue for the said multinational organization and in turn become the basis for their own respective well being and success in the industry, both financially as well as socially. Thus it is not only about just adhering to the structural changes on the part of the employees in the literal sense but also understanding that these changes would do some benefit or the other in a combined effect as well as that on a personal level. Then only is the approach developed which keeps the organization's individual entities going and thus they remain satisfied no matter what kind of problems linger on their heads. The changing global environment demands that the multinational organizations are ready to change whenever the need so happens. They have to be on their toes all the time as well as carry out activities; both tactically as well as from the long term perspective that satisfies all the stakeholders and not just the consumers who receive their products and/or services. The organizational changes in terms of their strategies need to be chalked out with the facilitation of both the top management as well as the knowledge organization as they are the ones who actually have the much needed solid knowledge and information as to how the relevant strategies can be incorporated into the system of the organizations in the first place. The strategies are always drawn up whilst keeping the future in perspective while tactics usually change every now and then and are of short term nature. Hence it is the need of the hour to ascertain the exact combination of strategies and tactics and then carry them along well with what is needed by the organization, keeping in mind the short term and long term discussion. The bottom line remains the fact that the organization is bringing in changes for the people who are connected with it, in one way or the other and that the multinational organization is not bent upon satisfying its personal whims over an extended period of time no matter the same being true for fortnight duration as well. Bibliography Anand, N. and Nicholson, N. (eds.). (2004). Change: How to adapt and transform the business. Norwich: Format Publishing. Balogun, J. and Hailey, V. H. (1999). Exploring Strategic Change. Prentice Hall. Bartol, K.M. and Martin, D.C. (1994). Management (2nd ed.) Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International. Grant, R. M. (2005). Contemporary strategy analysis. (5th ed.) Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring corporate strategy (7th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Kotler, J. P. (1995). 'Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail'. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 73, No.2, pp.59-67. Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational Behavior. (7th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. Morgan, G. (1989). Creative Organization Theory. A Resource Book. London: Sage. Pugh, D.S., Hickson,D.J., Hinings,C.R. and Turner, C. (1969). 'Dimensions of organization structure'. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 17, pp. 163-176. Senior, B. (1997). Organizational Change. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Free Press, translated and edited by Henderson, M. A. and Parsons, T,. in Pugh, D.S. (1990). Organization Theory. Selected Readings. London: Penguin. (German original published in 1924). Wilson, D.C. and Rosenfeld, R.H. (1991) Managing Organizations, Text, Readings and Cases. Instructors Resource Book. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Word Count: 2,535 Read More