International HRM Issues At Airbus Company

HRM Issues in the Case Study

Discuss about the Organisation Contemporary Principles and Practice.

In case of a global setup, operations are never limited only to a particular nation. The global corporations today are highly formalised, globalised and integrated in terms of providing services to the customers (Anderson and Anderson, 2011). Most of the central operations are carried out at the head offices, which make it a prerequisite for business strategy success especially in cross-market integration. According to Carter (2014), head offices for any company usually deal with the major set of strategic activities, including fundraising for the on-going business activities, research & development (R&D), training as well as maintaining links with shareholders and stakeholders. Head offices also constantly thrive for high level of efficiency through establishment of hierarchical management system and controlled operational environment (Carter, 2014). Further, designing of all the HRM policies is also the responsibility of the corporate head office only and each country level office is supposed to report the progress of the various HRM policies to the head office (Bradford and Burke, 2009). The strategic aim behind this approach is to ensure high level of business integration and transparency on a global scale. For example, allocation of private passwords to each of the company’s employee’ by the head office to maintain a globally integrated organisation (Kleynhan, 2009).

Moving ahead, effective HRM policies are extremely vital and important in organisations for resolving resource related issues. There are various kinds of HRM policies including recruitment policy, attendance management, leave management, performance evaluation, compensation etc (Ulrich, 2016). So far, there have been numerous research studies highlighting the need for MNCs to obtain a balance amongst the global integration and local responsiveness, in the HRM policies (Kleynhan, 2009). HRM policies should complement the culture of a nation, where the subsidiary branch exists. MNCs should be well aware of the local responsiveness and should achieve it through investing in local staff hiring, training, retention and constant development (Ulrich, 2016). Cultural awareness should also be considered (Sullivan, 2010). Further, MNCs should focus on developing a standard corporate culture across several locations and maintain a balance with the local cultural differences (Ulrich, 2016). According to Kleynhan (2009), standardisation should never be neglected as it helps save operational cost, effort and work but localisation helps gain market. This is achieved through satisfying local taste needs of the consumers and employing local staff. Further, taking the above discussion into consideration this particular paper revolves around the International HRM issues prevalent at Airbus Company.

Handling HRM Issues at Airbus

As stated in the case study there are several issues prevalent at Airbus Company. Firstly, there is lack of adequate and proper communication at the company. Airbus Company home country (Australian) teams aren’t functioning effectively and there prevail a communication breakdown amid the integrated teams as well as across teams and management. The culture at Airbus has developed into one that is very negative and workers have adopted the mantra ‘near enough is good enough’. The employees are also not motivated to give in their high efforts. Staff give the impression they would resist any attempt to make change (Anderson and Anderson, 2011). This kind of culture extends to communications between Headquarters and the subsidiaries. Secondly, one of the home country management teams has identified quality as one of the major problems at Airbus and this is directly related to parts from China and Vietnam. Aircraft require small to large modifications even after they have been delivered to customers. Customers, both government and non-government, are complaining about the lack of quality, once very important to Airbus. Thirdly, there are issues at Airbus related to embracing the rich value of working with diverse people. At headquarters there is intolerance towards working with employees from different generations. Senior staff is intolerant of working with apprentices and working relationships are strained. Secondly, there is a lack of recruitment of people with disabilities in China. Managers are actively ignoring job applications of people with disabilities, even when their skills are above and beyond other candidates. Fourthly, there are numerous performance management issues across Airbus. International performance is closely connected to international performance appraisals but these are lacking at Airbus.

Performance reviews are conducted by HR in Australia but there are no performance reviews conducted at any of the subsidiaries. There is no formal performance appraisal process for expatriates. At headquarters decisions are made that affect each of the subsidiaries. For instance, headquarters will issue a decision and make an order for Singapore to produce a certain quota of parts only to find out there is a surplus of the same parts in Australia. Clearly, the implementation of decisions for the subsidiaries results in conflicting performance outcomes (Kleynhan, 2009). Moving ahead, as a function of HR, training and develoapment should be concerned with every aspect of the organisation’s activities. Expatriate training for those leaving Australia to work in China, Singapore or Vietnam is limited to half a day. HR refers staff to their online resources and assumes that every person has the same needs when they agree to work in another country.  There are no feedback avenues for employees to comment on the effectiveness of the expatriate training. The level of performance at Airbus indicates there’s a very strong rationale for focusing more on training and development across the organisation. There is no systematic workforce planning and management development program at Airbus. Management development programs within an organisation work to internally identify and recruit potential managers, and develop their knowledge and skills through career development plans to meet organisational needs (Kleynhan, 2009). This ensures a clear and effective succession plan for all key management roles. Employees are unaware of their career prospects with the company as career development plans are not utilised. Senior management do not develop junior employees to take over their role for fear of being sidelined for promotion. This lack of professional development has meant that a number of key employees earmarked for promotion have been poached by other companies.

One of the home country management teams has identified quality as one of the major problems at Airbus and this is directly related to parts from China and Vietnam. Aircraft require small to large modifications even after they have been delivered to customers. Customers, both government and non-government, are complaining about the lack of quality, once very important to Airbus.

There is no formal performance appraisal process for expatriates. At headquarters decisions are made that affect each of the subsidiaries. For instance, headquarters will issue a decision and make an order for Singapore to produce a certain quota of parts only to find out there is a surplus of the same parts in Australia. Clearly, the implementation of decisions for the subsidiaries results in conflicting performance outcomes (Sullivan, 2010). Moving ahead, as a function of HR, training and development should be concerned with every aspect of the organisation’s activities. Expatriate training for those leaving Australia to work in China, Singapore or Vietnam is limited to half a day.

There is lack of adequate and proper communication at the company. Airbus home country (Australian) teams aren’t functioning effectively and there prevail a communication breakdown amid the integrated teams as well as across teams and management. The culture at Airbus has developed into one that is very negative and workers have adopted the mantra ‘near enough is good enough’. The employees are also not motivated to give in their high efforts. Staff give the impression they would resist any attempt to make change. This kind of culture extends to communications between

Moving ahead, Airbus could ensure that the issues are not repeated in the Host Environment (Australia) and its subsidiaries (i.e. Vietnam, China and Singapore) by following the below strategies.

The majority of companies in the present day are in a continuous state of ?ux due to continuous modernisation and changes in the business environment (Anderson and Anderson, 2011). This requires companies also to bring change to their procedures, practices and products. Constructive change could prove to be advantageous for the companies under particular situations. However, too much change or change that is not planned properly and executed could result in high level of organisational unsteadiness (Sullivan, 2010). In case of Airbus, it can be clearly stated the employees are not much concerned about the company’s situation thus they might not show much preference towards organisational development or changes in the company. This call for proper development and training of the workforce associated with the company or involved in its operations. It is important for employees to show full involvement towards the initiative of organisational development (Anderson and Anderson, 2011). There is lack of communication at all levels, thus the company needs to make sure that there are in place effective communication strategies.

Airbus is also likely to face system issues due to lack of knowledge about their use and application in the company and amongst the employees involved. It is highly necessary to make sure that the new systems are effectively implemented and proper information about their use and features are circulated at all levels of the company (Western, 2010). Failure to effectively implement and manage new systems can shift the company towards negative trend (Sullivan, 2010). Additionally, it is also necessary to weigh the existing systems with the proposed ones to ensure the new systems have something extra to offer.

Lack of motivation among the employees of Airbus has been observed as being a chief concern at the company (Hill and Gareth, 2012). Despite of the fact that employees are very well attentive of the fact that the company is in trouble they are taking things so lightly as if everything is ok and under control. This surely points towards lack of motivation and appears like they are not at all bothered about company’s progress and just want their individual objectives to be fulfilled. As a result, for organisational development to be successful, it is very important to gain employees’ support and readiness for it (Sullivan, 2010). The employees need to be motivated on regular basis to put in high efforts for company’s progress.

The process of appreciative enquiry begins by enquiring what actually is functioning well (Bradford and Burke, 2005). Groups lay emphasis on what is performing right instead of focussing on what is going wrong (Hill and Gareth, 2012). The chief idea is finding means of performing more of the right processes, therefore offering less support for the wrong practices (Child, 2005). This process could provide Airbus a benchmark for enhancement. However, Airbus must be highly attentive when using this method since they could mislead themselves into thinking that all they require is repeating few bright operations for succeeding, which is actually not successful in long-term.

Conclusion

As discussed in the provided case study, Airbus is facing several issues that require immediate attention. The chief issue is concerned with lack of motivation amongst the staff members at Airbus to put in their best and consider seriously the issues impacting the company. Moreover, there are also financial gaps occurring because of ineffective management. To improve the position, the company requires adopting few change initiatives in its operations and practices. To effectively deal with the situation, Airbus should take few corrective measures.

Change in style of leadership- Taking into consideration, the present situation at Airbus, it can be stated that the company should opt for democratic style of leadership. This style of leadership involves the leader to share the decision-making skills with group members through encouraging the interests of team members and through way of practicing social equality (Tittemore, 2013). This leadership style involves debate, discussion and sharing of viewpoints and motivation of individuals to feel good about participation (Hersey et. al., 2008). By ensuring higher involvement of the staff members in decisions and discussion related to the company, Airbus can effectively deal with the change and issues surrounding it (Sullivan, 2010).

Employee Assistance programmes (EAP)- TheEmployee Assistance Programs (EAPs) basically refer towards employee benefit initiatives made available through several employers. EAPs are aimed at helping employees to effectively handle personal issues, which might unfavourably affect their job performance, well-being and health (Western, 2010). EAPs usually take in short-term referral services and counselling for the staff members (Hill and Gareth, 2012).  By way of EAPs, Airbus would be able to effectively address the problems faced by the employees dealing with change.

External consultants or Envoys – Airbus could also appoint external consultants or envoys for effectively dealing with the change. These external consultants could offer expertise as well as specialist knowledge related to different facets of change and restructuring (Hersey et. al., 2008). They not just help in guiding the company towards the right path but also offer proper guidance to the staff members to effectively cope with the change.

Team working/ building – Working in teams certainly proves to be highly beneficial for the individuals as well as the company (Child, 2009). It helps in bringing in the pool of expertise held by individuals belonging diverse backdrops (Carter, 2014). Team building can help people at Airbus to effectively deal with changing relationships and roles, or communities of practice for the purpose of developing knowledge for operations and modernisation and as a result, introducing new products and services.

References:

Anderson, D. and Anderson, L. A. (2011). Beyond Change Management: Advanced Strategies for Today’s Transformational Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer

Bradford, D. L. and Burke, W. W. (2009). Organisation Development. San Francisco: Pfeiffer

Carter, L. L. (2014). Best Practices in Leadership Development and Organisation Change. Jossey Bass

Child, J. (2009). Organisation Contemporary Principles and Practice. Blackwell Publishing

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. and Johnson, D. (2008). Management of Organisational Behaviour: Leading Human Resources (9^th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 

Hill, C. and Gareth, R. (2012). Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach (10^th Ed.). Cengage Learning

Kleynhan, R. (2009). Fresh Perspectives: Human Resource Management. UJ Custom Publication, Pearson South Africa

Ulrich, D. (2016). Human Resource Champions, The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press

Sullivan, R. (2010). Practicing Organisation Development: A Guide for Leading Change. Jossey Bass

Western, S. (2010). What do we mean by Organisational Development. Krakow: Krakow: Advisio Press

Tittemore, J. A. (2013). Leadership at all Levels. Canada: Boskwa Publishing

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order