Boeing Aircraft Companys Organizational Challenge - Case Study Example

Introduction With the increase of aircrafts demand, most of the manufactures as well as technology advancers have put their concentration on total quality management of any other organization as way to reengineer air travel. Bruce Martin (2006, 45), is one of the pioneers in the field of management that he focuses on the successful leadership style. He stated that leadership style in an organization merely affect or influence the overall organizational behavior that later constitute to a culture. This style has a number of factors that needs to be predominant so as to influence the overall performance of executives as well as employees. In many cases, a most problems are considered a challenge for an organization that strives to achieve quality (Bruce, 2006). The core purpose of this report is to identify Boeing organizational challenge and possible remedy to cover this problem. Typically, all other organizations are considered a community of people which are guided by a unitary goal. There is a misunderstanding of organizational function in Boeing Company which raises conflict that is misconceived by the large number of employees as well as customers. Fayol technically expressed management as working with and through people in an organization. In this case therefore the report will focus on style of leadership between Frank Shrontz and Philip Condit. Leadership styles differ in organizations depending on the culture created by leaders and their employees. Scientific management may use technical theories to describe organizational behavior which apparently lacks critiques in defining this problem in any organization. Thus, it is fine to understand the needs of the employee as a leader. Bruce Martin considers democratic style of leadership in resolving such issues within the culture. Otherwise, leaders ordinarily may think that new ideas are always new initiatives; rather, they are advanced from the older ones. Overview of Boeing organization To date, Boeing organization has been managed by seven outstanding leaders who have demonstrated their styles of leadership differently. The organization was established in the year 1916 by the timber-man called William Boeing. The organization was later named after him. During the establishment period of the organization, the number of employed work force was 108, 000 and there was a sense of number increase due to diversification of its products and services. The growth of the organization was realized since the number of employees increased from 108,000 to about 161,000. This called for efficient as well as effective leadership. It is evidenced that Boeing organization supply one third of the commercial market with aircraft compared to the other competitors in the global market. This is a large proportion in the market which is easily realized by the consumers of the products. Quality and time delivery order is the driving factor of Boeing organization. Frank Shront and Philip Condit are two leaders who had a chance to control, plan as well as coordinate the activities in the organization. The two leaders had problems during their regime which later the problem was found to be common. The culture developed by the two leaders looked similar too though difference in handling performance review. Initial problem facing Boeing organization Ronald Woodard stated clearly the problem facing Boeing organization as misunderstanding by both the consumers of the products (aircrafts) and the employees in the organization that the company main activity is manufacturing not technology development enterprise. Therefore it is a big role to leaders to clearly define the core faction of the company to all the stakeholders of Boeing organization. Usually organizations with strong cultures do not pass in identifying the current problem facing them since they have a good set of internal control (Buhler, 2001, 247). However, critical analysis by leaders is very essential when it comes to employee management in the organization. Descriptive methodology is perhaps the best mode when defining any aspect of challenge experienced by a leader in the organization. Otherwise, it may be difficult to understand the needs of employees without being interactive and forming normative unions too that will assess a diverse group challenge. According to (Harigopal, 2006, 140), to implement a successful strategy so as to overcome a problem in a culture, the past problem experienced should be clearly identified so as to give a good foundation of how to change the behavior developed by employees in the organization. Problem identification will therefore involve three main stages. These stages include; problem diagnosis, planning intervention and monitoring the change processes. The first step is very crucial in problem identification and it is highly recommended that every other leader beneath from the lower level of management to the higher level should be well conversant with this stage for effective and efficient demonstration of good leadership style. Problem analysis Leaders will experience ease of activities when they use this strategy as an aid in managing organizational change. From that leadership style of Frank, we realize downsizing of Boeing organization when the number of employees in the year 1990 were reduce from 161,700 to the initial number that is 108,000. The logic behind this is to reduce cost but maintaining time delivery of order as well as quality of the products produced. The conflict of misunderstanding that exists between employees and senior supervisors of operational activities in Boeing airline manufacturing company is evaluated using this strategy. In problem diagnosis, factors contributing to the main problem are scrutinized and categorized together for easy identification (Harigopal, 2006, 140). After clearly defining the interconnected causes, stream analysis is the second step that will give best guidelines for planning an intervention towards the problem. The third step will entail monitoring of the strategized interventions in resolving the problem. Thus, with this case of Boeing Airline Company, Frank and Philip had to fully understand the organizational culture and behavior that made them to develop the style of leadership they demonstrated during their regime. In both leadership styles, there was confrontation relationship between executives and employees. Leadership evaluation between Frank and Philip Generally, in adopting leadership skill, one should confront one important sensible inquiry, “what management styles work most excellent for me and the organization he /she is managing. Frank Shrontz managed the organization with transformational leadership style that had a purpose of redefining and making change happen in him, employees, groups (military international association) as well as the organization. This leadership style imports skills from charismatic and visionary leadership. When Woodard identified the core problem of Boeing organization, Frank on the other side wanted to transform, employees and organization so as to cope the problem of misunderstanding. Hey says, “We need to motivate people to understand the benefits of change and make it happen.” This is clear definition of integrated leadership style that starts from realization of oneself (leader), employee and organization which will later develop transformation of understanding (Harigopal, 2006, 220). Philip Condit adopted the theme of working together to reach the unitary goal guided by set objectives. This is more of cross-cultural leadership as well as visionary leadership style. Buhler (2001) says that the roots of problems in any organization are knowledge without character. Thus, the only way to realize one’s character is working together as a society. By and large we can say that Philip is a motivational leader. He organizes integrated groups with the purpose of technical skill development on the core activity of the organization. Integrated groups usually clarify doubted and misunderstood statement of the organization. So it will be easier for the stakeholders of Boeing airline product manufactures to understand the core function of the organization. Recommendation It is highly recommended that when there is such kind of conflict, it is therefore very essential to set responsibilities in performance appraisal that will interconnect both the managers and human resource management department (HRM) of the organization. This will aid much in defending negative approach of operational activities by employees thus making them prosper in the long term. The core factor is to workers to participate actively ad have a mindset of problem solving. As a leader there should be a clear definition of goals and direction, everyday reaction on subdued behavior and create an opportunity for employees to advance new skills in the organization. Hiring people with great talent and ability does better too in initiating change for success. Conclusion Generally, a leader should not develop any egocentric behavior within the organization which in the long run, it is very impulsive to the employees as well as customers. This will apparently support misunderstanding of activities in the organization. Rather, unilateral leadership which is characterized by respect and command clearly defines organizational mission (Bruce, 2006). The typical behaviors behind this are avoiding misconception of ideas and waiting for external aider in any functional activity. Reference Buhler, P. 2001. Alpha Teach Yourself Management Skills in 24 Hours. Indianapolis: Alpha Books. Harigopal, K. 2006. Management of Organizational Change: Leveraging Transformation. London: SAGE. Bruce, M. (2006). Outdoor leadership: Theory and Practice. Australia: Human Kinetics. Read More