The paper 'Management Communication' is a wonderful example of a Management Case Study. In 2012 Qantas Airways, the largest Australian airliner operating in the domestic and international market and owned by the Qantas Group grounded its operations for two days. An estimated 680 000 local and international travelers were affected. The grounding was occasioned by a labor dispute between the firm’ s leadership and its 35 000 strong workforces. Some of the demands raised by various labor unions serving the employees were halting of pending lay-offs, better pay, and favorable working conditions.
Consequently, the Australian commonwealth government through the Fair Work Australia (FWA) intervened by calling for negotiations to take place within 21 days. With the dispute resolved and the firm back in operations, the effect of the grounding lingered on. Many observers blamed the management and the firm’ s leaders for messing up their travel plans and failure for prior information on the pending grounding of flights. Such are the challenges facing leadership and communication issues facing the organization. It is the purpose of this paper to profile communication and leadership style at Qantas airlines against relevant theory in organizational leadership and communication. Dominant management structures Traditionally, Qantas has had a vertical management structure characterized by a centralized decision-making body of board of directors comprising of 12 members.
The board is headed by a chairman while the CEO, who is answerable to the board, oversees the running of daily activities. There are nine managers who answer directly to the CEO including Qantas domestic, Qantas international CFO, and HRM among others (Qantas, 2012). This arrangement corresponds to a vertical structure. In 2012 Qantas, underwent a structure fragmentation process that saw the firm create two unique business entities out of one, Qantas international and Qantas domestic, to operate alongside JetStar and Frequent Flyer as unique entities.
This marks the continued attempt by the firm to evolve with changing times and going towards a flatter hybrid management structure. A flatter management structure has shown that it fosters more trust from employees and also facilitates faster and more effective communication, especially where urgent decisions need to be implemented (Grieve, 2005). Qantas is also fragmenting operations by creating new positions in its structure to handle new aspects in the industry and in its operations.
For instance, the appointment of the new Group Executive Brand, Marketing and Corporate Affairs position currently occupied by Olivia Wirth is set to address the harm caused to the brand as a result of the grounding a year ago (Ibid). Therefore, the firm is moving in the right direction by evolving to develop an effective leadership and communication structure that ensures the firm meets its goals and obligations to shareholders and stakeholders. Dominant management styles Classical and humanistic approaches to management are two distinct approaches based on different theoretical grounds.
The classical approach emphasizes on increased productivity and higher profits while the humanistic approach emphasizes protecting the dignity of its employees, customers, and other stakeholders (Samson & Daft 2012). Firms have to balance between the pursuit of profits thus satisfy investors without exploiting their employees. At the moment, the most dominant approach employed by Qantas is the classical approach. This is best indicated by the recent industrial dispute between the firm and various unions. The firm was accused of exploiting its employees through poor working conditions and poor pay.
Furthermore, the firm has been involved in massive layoffs with attempts to downsize and even outsource some services.
Ahmed, Z., Shileds, F. & Wilbert, J. (2010). Managerial communication: the link between
frontline leadership and organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 14(1);107-120.
Al-Alawi, A., Al-Marzooqi, N., Mohammed, Y. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge
sharing: critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(2); 22-42. DOI 10.1108/13673270710738898
Celik, M. & Dogan, E. (2011). A theoretical approach to the science of management.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(3); 65-69.
Chand, M. (2006). The Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate
Financial performance: industry type as a boundary condition. The Business Review,
Cambridge 5(1); 240-245.
de Hoff, B. & de Ridder, J. (2004) Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6); 117 - 130
de Vries, R., Bakker-Pieper, A. & Oostenveld, W. (2009). Leadership = communication? The
relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology DOI: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2
Grieve, B. (2005). Leadership communication: A key success factor in organizational readiness
for change. Thesis, Honours BBA Wilfrid Laurier University
Holmes, J., Schurr, S. & Marra, M. (2004). Leadership and communication: discursive evidence
of a workplace culture change. Discourse & Communication 1(4). 433-451.
Lin, H. (2005). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2); 135–149. DOI: 10.1177/0165551506068174
McDonald, J. & Crawford, I. (2012). Inter-organisational post-crisis communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 17(2), 173-186. DOI 10.1108/13563281211220300
Qantas (2012). Annual report. Retrieved online from http://www.qantas.com.au/
Samson, D. & Daft, R. L. (2012) Management, 4th Asia Pacific Edition Chapter 1., Cengage
Vasilovschi, N. (2013). Organizational communication-strategies at international level. Transit
Stud Rev. 19:493–502. DO I 10.1007/s11300-013-0259-5.
Vorhies, D. & Morgan, N. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable
competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing , 69; 80–94.
Zerfass, A. & Huck, S. (2007). Innovation, communication, and leadership: new developments
in strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(2), 107–122.
Zwolinski, M. (2008). The ethics of price gouging. Business Ethics Quarterly. 18(3); 347-378.