Major Business Incident and Effective Communication - Malaysia Airlines - Case Study Example

Major Business Incident and Effective Communication Name Professor Institution Course Date Major Business Incident and Effective Communication For many years, business experts have been stating that people are now in the information and communication economy (Elving 2005, p.131). However, few businesses, are struggling with the meaning of this phrase and how it functions in relation to employees, customers, regulators, partners and investors. Most companies have endeavored to heavily invest on information technology and committed major resources in developing different information infrastructure such as websites, extranet and intranet but have not mastered the critical about communication. The truth is communication is valued across the organization and even outside. Hussey (2013) contended that the employees need to have a clear communication channel to recall the goals and direction the company is taking. Similarly, the consumer needs regular update on new products, profits and sustainability. In the recent past, various businesses have gone down or undergone an accident result of breakdown of communication (De Wolf & Mejri 2013, p.50). One of the business accidents in the recent past as a result of poor communication is Malaysia Airline Flight which took place in 2014. Based on the topic, this essay will describe the Malaysia Airlines accident and analyze how the company handled the issue based on communication theories. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 accident was one of the worst of its kind. On 8th March 2015 while travelling to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 lost it contact with the traffic control when above South Asia Sea just one hour following the take-off. At around 01:21, the plane lost from screen of the traffic controllers (MacLeod, Winter & Gray 2014). The radar of Malaysian military went ahead to track the flight since it veered-off its path and went to Malay Peninsula until. At 02.22, the military lost the plane on its radar while above the Andaman Sea. According to MacLeod, Winter and Gray (2014) the company went ahead to announce that the plane had disappeared. Flight 370, Boeing model had 239 people on board comprising of 12 members of the crew and 227 travelers from 15 countries. After the loss from the traffic control radar, Area Control Centre at Ho Chi Minh called on the Area Control Centre in Kuala Lumpur to ask about the whereabouts of the plane (Chris et al. 2014). However, the latter claimed that the Flight 370 was in the Cambodian air space. More contacts were made with an aim of establishing the path the plane had taken. However, the company took four hours after it’s lost the communication with the plane to organize for rescue response. In addition, MacLeod, Winter & Gray (2014) posited that the company announced the disappearance of the plane at 07:24 which was an hour after the planes’ scheduled arrival. The response over the plane rescue shows by the company demonstrates confusion in communication. It could have been natural accident but the handling of the issues also to some extent it depict human error as a cause. The Federal Aviation Administration claimed that 60-80 percent of plane accidents are caused by human faults (Vieira, dos Santos, & de Morais 2014, p. 125). The figures present a real perspective to the importance of creating effective and proper communication skills. The truth is that it is generally believed that people will certainly make errors. However, Vieira, dos Santos & de Morais (2014, p. 127) went ahead to argue that there must be psychological obstacle between accident and error, the capability to determine, capture and to rectify the error sooner than it spreads. Looking at the Flight 370, the management did not act faster and send rescue response to try to salvage the situation before it became worse. Hussey (2013) stated that this is in the contrary to the claim that experience comes with the tendency of allowing a situation to happen fast. During any accidents majorly involving a business, public are normally anxious to get the on-goings because they can be directly or indirectly affected by it. According to Coombs et al (2010, p.339) the communication to the public dictates the image of the company as caring for the wellbeing of the public or as profit-oriented. The expectation was not met by the company as public communication from the Malaysian Airlines about disappearance of the plane was primarily marred with the confusion. Both the Malaysian government and Malaysian airline management released incomplete, inaccurate and imprecise information, with the management’s communication sometimes conflicting military leaders (Chris et al., 2014). Malaysian Airlines management was disparaged for the unrelenting communication of conflicting information particularly about last time and point of communication with the flight. Malaysian Airline is an international company operating worldwide hence has customers across the globe. At the time of disappearance, the company had passengers from 15 countries with China dominating the number of travelers on board (Chris et al., 2014). This means that the customers which depended of the company’s press release were not only Malaysia, but also several others from China, Netherlands, Australia, US, New Zealand, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine, India, France and Indonesia among others (MacLeod, Winter & Gray 2014). On the other hand, failing to reach the pilot, co-pilot and the rest of the crew while the plane was still on the traffic radar leaves a lot of questions. On one hand, the pilots failed in its part to raise alarm that the plane was in danger. Many communication experts can question the form of personal communication and communication equipment used by the company. It shows how the company has not regarded communication among its core agenda in the operation. Baron (n.d) argued that Cockpit is one of the important places which highly need effective communication. History shows that breakdown of communication within this section has frequently resulted less desirable situation such as accidents. Management experts hold that members of an organization must communicate efficiently with one another at personal or business level to make smooth running of activities (Welch & Jackson 2007, p. 179). Due to the fact that in airline industry a higher-risk condition can simply turn out to be a disaster, communication is therefore regarded to be a key factor for people operating within this sector. Therefore, this implies that communication development should not be handled carelessly or be viewed as additional option in aviation’s preparatory courses for crew, ground professionals and pilots. Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka (2010, p.303) contended that inadequate communication skills can simply ruin technical and intellectual knowledge and competence and might negatively influence the process of decision-making in this dynamic business environment. If the pilot would have mustered the art of communication, he would have made a quick decision to reach ground professional to organize for rescue. On the other hand, the moment Malaysian Airline management had realized they lost the flight 370 on their but was still appearing on Military radar, they would have realized a danger in the offing and try to reach the pilot. Therefore, effective communication helps on avoiding mistake or committing errors. Mazzei (2010, p.224) also argued that effective communication helps the management in improving the firm’s reputation. The claim can be attributed to the fact that this effectiveness will make stakeholders view the information as credible and caring (Payne 2006, p.165). As stated before, at the time of crisis, the public demands communication on the action of the company, and failure can lead to boycott of the company’s product or services in future as it happened between Malaysian Airline and its Chinese customers. The situation is likely to affect the growth, survival and profitability in future. Business and public relations’ expert argue that during the times of crisis, the public looks to get some order in the accidents in that they seeks to find sense in what is taking place and only effective and timely communication can help them do that (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2007). In today’s corporate world, communication is blended with public relation to promote the image of the company. For longer survival, companies must incorporate corporate apologia in enhancing operation. According to Paraskevas (2006, p.894) corporate apologia involves crisis communication and management. Many theorists on the crisis communication have recommended theoretical frameworks and models for effective communication. However, Situational Crisis Communication Theory and theory of image restoration created by Holladay and Coombs are the most applied theories in management. Lee (2004, p.604) classified six main communications strategies which firms can use when facing a predicament. The first approach is referred to as “shifting blame”; meaning stating that other people are responsible. Other approaches are minimization, no comment and apologia. In minimization, the company can tell the public that the outcome of accident is not bad as people portray it. No comment takes that form refusing to comment of the issue while apologia is where the company makes a statement which looks to be apologetic in nature (Lee 2004, p.607). The fifth approach is called compensation and entails given out monetary the fifth strategy labeled “compensation” involves giving monetary damages to the victims. The sixth approach is the termed “correct action” and entails taking action to stop similar action in future. However, in communication perspective, apologia is encouraged because it makes the company look remorseful even if it is on the wrong (Smith 2008). Developing a clear communication channel with clients saves the company from the public backlash. De Wolf & Mejri (2013, p.51) opined that the risk of not providing information is often losing clients to competitors. Apologia can be used to break the news in a polite way and stating the company regrets for the incident such as the disappearance of Flight 370. In addition, the company must appear taken which can prevent such occurrence in future. Effective communication improves steady flow of work and productivity. Bakar & Mustaffa (2013) claimed that when clear communication channel is established roles becomes clear of who to report to and at what time. Effective communication starts at personal level. The management must be agreeable in order to create strong rapport with employees; this will make employees free to discuss what is affecting them and their jobs (Ulmer, Sellnow & Seeger 2007). In addition, when a good rapport is created between employees and management, it can be replicated in the workforce to improve productivity. Breakdown of communication at personal level between the pilot and co-pilot, and the management could have resulted to flight accident. The research by Vieira, dos Santos & de Morais (2014, p.129) shows that poor interpersonal communication has caused nearly 70 to 80 percent of all air accidents in the previous 20 years. The same research held that 70 percent of pilots’ confidential reports suggest a relation between the communication and accident (Vieira, dos Santos & de Morais 2014, p.129). The whole perspective is that communications might also be delayed by the subordination issues. According to Federal Aviation Regulation, the pilot is responsible for and the ultimate authority in the operation of a flight. For that reason, the pilot must be assertive with communication in a team environment. This fundamental dichotomy sets up the platform of a proper balance which ought to be consistently upheld for appropriate communication to take place. A research indicated that pilot’s fault has more probably to mirror failures in the team coordination and communication rather than error in the technical proficiency (Vieira, dos Santos & de Morais 2014, p.130). Communication in workplace is however affected by various factors leading to operation crisis. Falkenheimer & Heide (2006, p.182) stated that cultural is one the major factors which hinder effective communication among airline crew members. In this business environment of the cultural diversity, having two pilots from diverse cultural background within the crew is not unusual. Vieira, dos Santos & de Morais (2014, p.132) argued that both nonverbal and verbal communications could be interpreted by the pilots differently hence having negative impact during flying, especially in higher-workload cases. Another factor which affects communication within the workplace is the communication equipment. Various communication equipment such as WAN and LAN, satellite, telephone, routers and mobile phones have been developed to improve the communication efficiency. However, if these equipments are not managed, they cannot function properly and produce a desired result (Hussey 2013). Individual employees also need to be trained on how to use communication gadgets. To create effective communication skill and channel to the required level, these gadgets must be serviced and new ones be put in place beginning with the diagnoses anchored on the resources and accompanied by a tailored training program to address the needs of the aviation environment. In conclusion, this essay described and analyzed Malaysian Airline accident which happened. The analysis has established breakdown between the plane crew and the airline company management. The accident depicts the importance of communication in the workplace. Effective communication skills enable efficient and rapid decision-making, improves steady flow of work and productivity, reducing mistakes and errors and motivation of employees. Customers also value communication because it enables them to understand the company offering and happenings. The need for communication therefore dictates that companies adopt crisis communication strategy for competitive advantage and image improvement. References Bakar, H.A & Mustaffa, C.S 2013, Organizational communication in Malaysia organizations: Incorporating cultural values in communication scale, International Journal of Corporate Communications, Vol. 18, No.1 pp. 87-109 Baron, R n.d, Barriers to Effective Communication: Implications for the Cockpit, viewed 9th July 2015, Coombs, W. T, Frandsen, F, Holladay, S.J & Johansen, W 2010, Why a concern for apologia and crisis communication? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No.4 pp. 337 – 349 Chris, A, Shuster, B.A, Gary, C & Mark, D 2014, The Search for MH370, The Journal of Navigation De Wolf, D & Mejri, M 2013, Crisis communication failures: The BP Case Study, International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, Vol.2, No.2, pp.48-56 Elving, W.J.L 2005, The role of communication in organizational change, International Journal of Corporate Communications, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 129-138 Falkenheimer, J & Heide, M 2006, Multicultural crisis communication: Towards a social constructionist perspective, Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol.14, No.4, pp.180-89. Hussey, L.K 2013, “Organizational communication”, in Velasquez, D.L. (Ed.), Library Management 101: A Practical Guide, ALA Editions, Chicago, IL Lee, BK 2004, Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong Kong consumers’ evaluation of an organizational crisis, Communication Research, Vol. 31, No.5, pp.600-618 Paraskevas, A 2006, Crisis management or crisis response system? A complexity science approach to organizational crises, Management Decision, Vol.44, No. 7, pp. 892-907. Payne, L.L 2006, Synthesizing Crisis Communication and Reputation Management, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 12, No. ¾, pp. 161-187. Mazzei, A 2010, Promoting active communication behaviours through internal communication, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 15 No.3 pp. 221-234 MacLeod, C, Winter, M & Gray, A 2014, Beijing-bound flight from Malaysia missing, USA Today Simonsen, H 2009, Communication policy, corporate language policy and corporate Information portal, Journal of Communication Management, Vol.13, No. 3 pp. 200 – 217 Smith, N 2008, I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Uusi-Rauva, C & Nurkka, J 2010, Effective internal environment-related communication: An employee perspective, Corp Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 15, No.3 pp. 299-314 Ulmer, RR, Sellnow, TL & Seeger, M W 2007, Effective crisis communication, Thousand Oakes, Sage Publications Welch, M & Jackson, P.R 2007, Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 12, No.2 pp. 177-198 Vieira, A.M, dos Santos, I.C & de Morais, P.R 2014, Poor Communication Skills Means High Risk for Aviation Safety, Gestão & Regionalidade, Vol. 30, No. 88, pp.123-137 Read More