Impact of Cultural Differences, Internal and Environmental Factors at Airbus Essay

Employees are affected by a number of internal and outside(a) forces that when combined produce given demeanours and attitudes. In this paper, I will consider the key factors affecting single(a) and groups behaviour and their corresponding relationship to the personal and brassal performance. The scenario, Airbus manufacturing plant in Toulouse, is dominated by tensions amongst groups of workers with several(predicate) cultural background. The tint of those cultural challenges, the pressures of delivering the A380s in date and the demands from the outer surround will be some of the factors that will be considered in the compendium below. In order to understand the multiple forces and the organisational permute processes undertaken by Airbus, two influential frameworks for channelize have been examined in this paper. The model introduced by Burke and Litwin (2002), and the speak to presented by Kotter (1995), based upon the authors research into corporate transform.1. mo rtal factors Attitudes and personal behavioural codes consist of an organisation of feelings, thoughts and cognitions in a delimitate situation. Airbus employees appear not to be motivated to fulfil the groups objectives as there are too many tensions and too more(prenominal) than suspicion (Hollinger & Wiesmann, 2008), as reported by an official of the French union. As work motif and line of business satisfaction are close linked with the overall performance of workers, it is important to identify factors leading to job dissatisfaction at Airbus. The arrival of two thousand electricians to resolve wiring riddle has impacted negatively on the Toulouse plant resulting in overcrowding, sudden depart in industrial processes and dispositions against other individuals with a number of differences. The temperament and individual emotions are ambitious to understand for people with diverse cultural up voice communication. in that location are to a fault differences in pay whic h are perceived as unequal and negative, particularly for those employees not on secondment. In summary, individuals are a lot resistant to transmit which involve loss and question. One of the most prevalent reasons for human resistance is the focus on their own best interests preferably of the organisations (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).2. Work group factors Although aggroup conversion end potentially create a positive organisational synergy, the same gutter also create unique challenges resulting from social integration, tension, and conflict (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). In the case of Airbus, it appears there are two leaders from different groups and glosss bringing different attitudes and dispositions to the groups, giving birth to nationalistic tensions among French and German employees. Management rivalries become a detrimental model for working groups (Drucker, 1986). aggroup engagement and social integration are then increasingly difficult as the majori ty of Germans are temporary employees coming from outside the companionship. Furthermore, the organisational culture of Airbus is affected by the lack of trust and transparency from management. In this situation, worship and suspicion emerge and French groups start to perceive the growing check of German managers as unfair and unequal. All these factors create frustrations amongst the teams and individuals thus producing uncertainty which affects the plant performance and the companys ability to meet delivery schedules.3. Organisational factors The organisational structure and culture as well as its policies and systems, together with the trim goals do work employee and team behaviours. With this in mind, it is important to consider that Airbus and its parent company EADS were merged in the name of European unity and intended to be more competitive in the aerospace industry. With the internal pressures of company restructuring consisting of the A380 delivery targets and on-lin e(prenominal) production delays, Airbus workers become dominated by uncertainties and tension between different working groups. As Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) highlighted in their study, human resistance often emerges during organisational change efforts. Power 8, Airbus restructuring programme which consisted of undertaking a number of changes including job cuts, mill sales, new areas for components sourcing and leadership turnover, produces social tensions and management rivalries inside the organisation.4. External environment An analysis of the national and global context of Airbus is crucial to understanding the influence of external forces producing both opportunities and threats to the organisation. Amongst those factors, pressures from politics, unions and public opinion are sovereign forces in the case of Airbus. Competition in the global market, mainly between Airbus and Boeing, is also intense. Each company is under pressure and suffering from severe delays in deliver y targets. State shareholders naturally makes the company subject to semipolitical interests and giving medication rules and regulations affect Airbus operations management and its decision making process. Questions are brocaded about the compatibility of the companys economic goals and its commitment to more political and social objectives. The leadership team need to engage and negotiate with merchandise unions, political parties and public movements to ensure success in the companys outcomes. Thus pressure from different groups makes it problematic for Airbus to align the internal organisation with the external forces.5. Change dynamics Burke and Litwin (1992) present a causative model that helps to define and establish a cause-and-effect relationship between a number of organizational elements which are key to organizational change. The linkage between these is the key to effective change. They identify the external environment as the dominant factor driving change in organi sations which affects their mission, culture, leadership and strategy. The companys structure, systems, management practices, and climate are in turn linked to those dimensions and impact the overall performance. In the case of Airbus, the merger between Airbus and EADS and the strong arguing of Boeing in the global aerospace market are the most dominant external forces. Those trigger a series of further changes in the company, which together, affects the motivation take of employees and work groups.6. Change management issues Kotter (1995) in his corporate change analysis provides a number of lessons learnt which help understand the complex issues outlined in the Airbus case study. One of the issues in Airbus strategy is the lack of cooperation from individuals and teams. Morale and motivation are important factors to control and influence, especially in the first physical body of the transformational process. Additionally, the role of leadership in terms of establishing a visio n, communicating it and be the example of the new behaviours is also crucial. Airbus past rivalry between the motive French and German management sides have been detrimental for the change effort. As Drucker (1986) points out managers inability to change their attitudes and behaviour as rapidly as their organizations require (Drucker, 1986) is a barrier for organisational growth. It is important to consider that changes take a long time to naturalise into the company culture. The benefit of Airbus restructuring programme, Power 8, cannot be judged before its time. The change in habits and rules destabilise people and the companys exposure to public opinion and political interest increases the process of change in its complexity.Conclusion Todays workforce is becoming more diverse in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. Managers are duty demarcation line to develop skills to influence the relationship between team diversity and team outcomes by analysing the current situation and p ossible issues to be avoided. Changes are mainly needed in the instance of Airbus, they are implementing a large outmatch change affecting the organisational leadership, culture, structure and operations. Consequently, people affected by change experience some level of discomfort but leaders can increase their level of success by selecting the right strategy and approach to use with workgroups and individuals. Effective change management strategy should be unvarying with the companys management behaviour and the overall companys culture, ensuring alignment of people internally and externally in the public environment. The change process in every organisation requires a length of time and readiness for individual change which proceed through stages which should not be overlooked for a successful outcome.