Learning Organisation - Qantas Airways - Case Study Example

Learning Organization: Case Study of Qantas Airways Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Overview of Qantas Airways 3 Explanation of the framework 3 Methodology 6 Findings: Synopsis of findings 6 Discussion 9 Individual level learning 10 Group level learning 11 Organization level learning 12 Recommendations 13 Recommended strategies 13 Barriers to implementation of recommendation strategies 14 Conclusion 14 Reference 15 Introduction This is a report on Qantas Airways as a learning organization. It involves analysis of Qantas attributes of learning with special reference to crew members at the company. The analysis used a modified version of analytical framework for learning organization. The analysis was based on secondary data from various documents about the company. First, a brief overview about the firm is provided. This is followed by discussing learning attributes followed by a synopsis of the findings. A discussion of the findings is then undertaken followed by discussion of recommended strategies and barriers to their implementation. Finally a conclusion is provided. Overview of Qantas Airways Qantas Airways is Australian flagship carrier. Its history dates back to 1920 when it used to operate in rural Queensland (Qantas Airways, 2011). The firm has since expanded into global markets. The firm attributes its growth to its people. Thus the firm is dedicated to developing a team of experienced and motivated people in order to remain competitive in the dynamic aviation industry. Explanation of the framework The framework which was previously devised indicates the context at which learning takes place (O’Keeffe, 2002). The framework also shows how learning at individual, group and organization levels ought to be integrated to work together in order for effective learning to take place. The framework identified various attributes associated with learning organization. This report lays focus on three major learning attributes which can be applied directly in the context of a firm as follows. Being in aviation industry, Qantas is a service provider and their services determine its success or failure. This calls for the firm to continuously analyses its service delivery system (Pool, & Pool, 2007). It has been lauded that learning from experience is a vital attribute for learning at individual level (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). This because such experiences develops insights from previous experiences that can be utilized to improve the performance of an individual. In addition such insights can be applied in the improvement of future outcomes and processes (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). Individual learning requires an attribute such as competence contribution which is the effort of individual employee in the company. Source of knowledge comes from such knowledge workers or individuals which make ‘knowledge creation’ as another attribute (Cabanero-Johnson & Berge, 2009). Overall personality of the individual reflects in the organization’s end result which indicates that personal development is another attribute of individual learning (Pettinger, 2002). Aviation industry requires high standards of service provision (Gherardi, 2009). Thus Qantas need to be involved in provision of excellent services to its customers in order to remain competitive. Since crew members often encounter new customers with different needs and challenges, there is need to share such experiences with one another (O’Keeffe, 2002). It has been found out that team development is one of the important attribute of group learning which is achieved by the activity of sharing experiences with team members on specific topic or issue changing radically the overall knowledge associated with the team. Sharing is another important attribute where the structural parties are able to exert influence (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2005). In general, the group learning involves activities through which a team would take action, get feedback, and make changes to improve (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). Furthermore, team learning has been identified as the most important learning attribute at group level since it provides opportunities for team members to share knowledge and to explore and adopt new approaches (Pool, & Pool, 2007). Attributes to the community and team learning combined includes team development, learning laboratory, competence contribution. Groups have become an important building block for organizational effectiveness (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). Understanding how the groups in the form of teams or community learn can have an impact on organization. Cohesion can be one of the important attribute in group learning. Insufficient cohesion leads to poor group learning (Cabanero-Johnson & Berge, 2009). Thus, it is valuable for a company like Qantas to facilitate such learning through groups by facilitating group meetings where crew members can share their experiences. Most service provider firms rely on feedback from clients to ensure that they can continuously improve on their services to remain competitive in the market. Core competences of the firm can also be an indication of the level of service provided to customers (Pool, & Pool, 2007). Through monitoring of core competences, a firm is able to identify where improvements ought to be made in order to remain competitive. Attributes such as knowledge management which involves identification, creation, representation, distribution and enabling adoption of insights and experiences are also essential for organization learning (O’Keeffe, 2002). Knowledge management as attribute indicates any activity dealing with tacit and explicit knowledge like video conferencing, collaborating through Wikis all become part of organizational learning (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). Organization memory is another key attribute for organization learning. Conducting meetings, analyzing the issues at hand and coming to best solution are some of the activities performed form part of organizational learning (Gherardi, 2009). To better understand the extent to which a firm is a learning organization, there is need to analyze the organization learning level, group level and individual level learning attributes (Cabanero-Johnson & Berge, 2009). It should be noted that any inconsistencies at any level of learning can have a negative effect in the general performance of a firm and result in a firm being less effective as a learning organization. Methodology This study used secondary data. Secondary data included documentary data such as written materials, company reports, journal articles, books and other records relevant to this study (Gherardi, 2009). This allowed enormous saving in resources since it was less expensive to collect data. It also allowed us to contextualize findings within a more general context (O’Keeffe, 2002). Even though secondary data has the disadvantage of being collected for different purpose which differed from the objective of thus study, it was nonetheless used due to convenience it offered (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). The method was also limited by the fact that it was not able to access some data which was collected for commercial purposes (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). Findings: Synopsis of findings After examining various secondary data about Qantas Airways, it emerged that the employees of the firm undergo performance appraisals on regular basis (Qantas Airways, 2011). It has been said that the firm has for long been undertaking assessment of its operational staff including cabin crew and airports personnel on customer service skills. The firm also introduced an assessment of behavioral skills underpinning safe performance as an extension of their existing staff appraisal systems (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). The behavior based performance appraisal system was tailored to the requirements of each division. Data from the past experiences is utilized in devising training mechanism for both new and old employees on safety and other skills of interacting with customers (Gherardi, 2009). The appraisals are participative in that the employees are allowed to evaluate themselves in addition to being assessed by fellow employees and supervisors. An external evaluator is also involved in appraising the employees. This indicates that the system 0of appraisals undertaken at the firm is fair and inclusive (O’Keeffe, 2002). The firm’s policy requires that the results of appraisals be kept up to date. This is an indication that the firm reflects on past experiences which has been cited in literature to be essential component for learning from experience (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). The data collected from performance appraisal system are used to identify the training needs of the organization as a whole. As a result the data make it possible for learning to take place at organization level. At group level, secondary data reveal that there is some form of group learning (Cabanero-Johnson & Berge, 2009). For instance, the behavioral performance appraisal outline indicates that crew members are appraised based on their input and the value of input, participation in discussions on decisions, assertive communication of concerns as required, provision of support to pilot flying, sharing of information with other crew, resolution of conflicts, use of tact and diplomacy in supporting of crew and their welfare in addition to many other aspects of behavior (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). The crew is expected to undertake and maintain a program to monitor and improve the crew performance. This indicates that there is group learning from both the experiences of self and other members of the crew (Song, Kim and Kolb, 2009). Discussions among crew members provide an avenue of learning from one another (Pool, & Pool, 2007). Group learning has been associated with group discussions and sharing of information on member experiences. The discussions are usually supervised and the information gathered and conclusions made in the sessions are distributed to crew members via their mails and also stored for future reference (Gherardi, 2009). At organization level, the firm uses performance appraisals to analyze the learning needs of its employees. This enables the firm to identify the essential skills and knowledge that most of its employees in a certain division requires (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). The needs analysis at Qantas follows three stages of attribution process. First, the behaviors of employees involved are observed. This is followed by determination of whether what is observed is being done deliberately (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). The observed behaviors are then attributed to either lack of skills and knowledge or deliberate action (Marquardt, 2002). A conclusion is then made after the three elements of attribution theory are assessed. A past review of those working the relevant division is established in order to establish whether the members of the division have problems when performing other duties (O’Keeffe, 2002). Any inconsistencies help to inform the firm on training needs of different employees in different divisions. This is especially when it is established that external factors are involved rather than employee’s personal error. Based on the identified needs fro learning employees are trained in order to improve their performance (Gherardi, 2009). This is an indication that Qantas undertakes organization level learning. At individual level, the performance appraisal requires the employee to carry out self assessment. The employee then discusses with his/her supervisor on where improvement need to be made in personal performance (Pool, & Pool, 2007). The employee is allowed to recognize the difference between own performance and the required standard and is required to actively seek feedback (Gherardi, 2009). Thus from such discussions the employee is able to identify where he/she needs to improve and if the problem is arising due to personal errors, the employee is able to learn from her/his past errors. Thus, individual learning takes place at Qantas. It can thus be concluded that Qantas Airways is a learning organization and supports learning at individual, group and individual level. Discussion A learning organization can be considered as an organization that is capable of creating, acquiring or transferring knowledge by modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights. Another school of thought on learning organization is that it involves changing cognitive and behavioral aspect of organization to make it adaptable and flexible (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). Organizational capability for change and improvement is directly tied to the aspect of learning. Survival of businesses depends on trying out new ways to conduct business in face of highly competitive markets. Enhancement of organizational learning capability within the organization by the employee led to learning yet faster (O’Keeffe, 2002). Organizations can survive if only they can rapidly assimilate new knowledge at a brisk pace while encouraging innovation all the way. Knowledge as one of the sources of competitive advantage has given the impetus to learning organization (Gherardi, 2009). The following section critically analyses Qantas Airways to determine the extent to which it is a learning organization (Garratt, 2002). Individual level learning Individual learning has been found to be essential fior successful performance of a firm. Thus a firm which has activities which allow employees to learn at individual level is deemed to succeed in its operations (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). For learning to be said to be taking place in a firm, there ought to be processes and outcomes which are supported by the firm. From the data collected from secondary sources it is apparent that Qantas Airways carries out performance appraisals for its employees both in terms of skills and behavior (Pool, & Pool, 2007). The results also indicate that these appraisals are car5ried out on regular basis. To encourage individual learning the firm allows its employees to undertake self evaluation which allow them to gauge themselves against standard performance requirements (Weber, 2005). The data also shows that the employees are required to seek feedback actively (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). This implies that employees are able to discuss their performance with their seniors and identify discrepancies between what is expected out of them and their performance. This allows the individual to understand how she/he can improve on his/her performance (Gherardi, 2009). The discussions and performance appraisals undertaken at Qantas enable employees to learn. The discussion held between the employees and their seniors provide an avenue for cause effect analysis which allows Qantas to analyze and summarize learning during performance appraisals. From these appraisals Qantas is able to identify training needs for its employees (O’Keeffe, 2002). From the findings it is also clear that records of employee meetings are also referred to by employees to enable them identify their shortcomings and learn from the experiences of other members’ contributions. Thus, employees are able to tailor the suggestions of fellow employees to apply to their unique situations while interacting with the firm’s customers. However, individual learning has been associated with subjectivity and incorrectness. In addition, this kind of learning has been found to vary from individual employee to another due to differences found in the differing abilities of individuals to transform their experiences (Pool, & Pool, 2007). This implies that unguided learning at individual level could be incorrect. However, most individual learning at Qantas are guided and thus it can be concluded that learning at individual level occurs at Qantas. Group level learning Group learning involves creation of knowledge via combined thinking and action by employing interrelated processes. This may be attained through team learning where individuals share values, interests and through encouragement of satisfying solutions which have the potential of influencing the group. The findings of this study indicate that employees are appraised based on their participation in group discussions and contribution to decision making process (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). From this we can deduce that the employees are involved in group meetings where they are expected to be active participants. Some sources indicate that Qantas employees are involved sharing their experiences and vital information. This allows employees to learn from each others experience (O’Keeffe, 2002). However, given the nature of aviation industry, not all employees are able to attend a single meeting at the same time and share experiences. However, it was found out that members who are not able to attend such meetings are able to obtain the information shared in such meeting via e-mails. Given that team meetings need to serve to develop team processes and awareness of other people’s knowledge, the group learning at Qantas has some limitations (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000). It is also argued that true knowledge can only be gained via meaning or interpretation of the experiences of others in addition to conscious interaction with other (Pool, & Pool, 2007). Given that some employees are not able to attend the meetings they are not able to learn through conscious interaction with others. Given these constraints on group learning process, Qantas can be said to be ineffective in the group learning perspective of learning organization. Organization level learning Organization learning is the process and activities which are devised in order to capture and embed experience in the organizational memory for future use. It involves collection of internal and external strategic information, clear data presentation, and availing the information for utilization in the whole firm. In addition to this, absorptive capacity involves ability of the firm to utilize this information (O’Keeffe, 2002). At Qantas this is evidenced by use of the data collected to carry out training needs analysis for future training of employees (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). This is an indication that Qantas has a high absorptive capability that enables it to effectively collect, reorganize, distribute, interpret and utilize it for the betterment of the firm’s performance. For the firm to be said to be learning, there is need for memory (Pool, & Pool, 2007). Qantas has a customer relationship system that enables it to collect data that is stored, analyzed and utilized for various functions aimed at improving the firm’s performance (Gherardi, 2009). The storage of group meetings resolution in the database and other knowledge related data ensure that the firm does not loose it essential knowledge that has been described to be very fragile (O’Keeffe, 2002). The firm offers refresher courses which enable employees to refresh on their past experiences that ensure that the essential skills and knowledge are not lost over time. From the discussion it is clear that Qantas embraces some form of organization learning. However, the group level learning at the firm is still wanting and thus makes Qantas not to be an effective learning organization. Recommendations From the discussion above, the major problem facing Qantas as a learning organization arise at group learning level. The following section provides an outline of some recommendations that can enhance learning at this level in order to make Qantas an effective learning organization. Recommended strategies Discussions and team learning need to be improved through designing and organizing meetings in a way that can allow members to be actively engaged (Pool, & Pool, 2007). Studies indicate that collaboration is essential and can be established via creation of an environment where participants can share through free communication without criticism or fear (Gherardi, 2009). Beneficial discussion also requires proper planning to enable members to learn from one another and learn together (Wang, & Ahmed, 2003). Thus Qantas require a well planned group meeting and to create an environment that favors free discussion to enable it attain the status of an effective learning organization. Barriers to implementation of recommendation strategies The time schedule of some crew members of Qantas may hinder the implementation of a well planed meeting for crew members (Gherardi, 2009). This is because not all members will be available to attend such meetings and thus members from a different plane may not be able to share experiences from other planes. In order to overcome this challenge, there is need for rotational schedule where crew members are not allowed to work in the same group (Senge, 2010). This will allow for such meetings to be productive since there is bound to be various experiences from various members of the group (Gould & Baldwin, 2004). Conclusion From the discussion it is clear that Qantas embraces some form of organization learning. However, the group level learning at the firm is still wanting and thus makes Qantas not to be an effective learning organization. To address this, discussions and team learning need to be improved through designing and organizing meetings in a way that can allow members to be actively engaged. However, the time schedule of some crew members of Qantas may hinder the implementation of a well planed meeting for crew members. In order to overcome this challenge, there is need for rotational schedule where crew members are not allowed to work in the same group. Reference Cabanero-Johnson, P., & Berge, Z. (2009). Digital natives: back to the future of microworlds in a corporate learning organization. Learning Organization, 16(4), 290 – 297 Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783-796. Garratt, B. (2002). Learning Organization: Developing Democracy at Work. London: Profile Books. Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., & Gino, F. (2005). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://matrixworkscorporate.com/images/R0803H-PDF-ENG.PDF Gherardi, S. (2009). Knowing and learning in practice-based studies: an introduction. Learning Organization, 16(5), 352 – 359 Gould, N., & Baldwin, M. 2004. Social work, critical reflection, and the learning organization. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Marquardt, M. (2002). Building the learning organization: mastering the 5 elements for corporate learning, 2nd Ed. London: Davies-Black Publishers. O’Keeffe, T. (2002). Organizational Learning: a new perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2), 130-141. Pettinger, R. (2002). The Learning Organization. London: John Wiley & Sons. Pool, S., & Pool, B. (2007). A management development model: Measuring organizational commitment and its impact on job satisfaction among executives in a learning organization. Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 353 – 369 Qantas Airways. (2011). Home. Retrieved from http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/home/au/en Senge, P. (2010). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: First Edition. Melbourne: Random House. Song, J., Kim, H., and Kolb, J. (2009). The effect of learning organization culture on the relationship between interpersonal trust and organizational commitment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(2), 147-169 Wang, C.L., & Ahmed, P.K. (2003). Organizational learning: a critical review. The learning organization, 10(1), 8-17. Weber, S. (2005). Learning organization: how does the CCHSA accreditation process help health care organizations to develop their learning processes? Ottawa: University of Ottawa Read More