BUSINESS -content– Article: Wayward Airbus Airbus was faced with one of the “costliest blunders in the history of commercial aviation” due to issues with wiring compatibility. Although the problem appeared to be isolated to an engineering flaw, it was in fact much deeper. Over the years, Airbus had become a company deeply divided across geo-political lines. The firm had capitalized on this political landscape during its early years; benefiting from tax breaks and other incentives provided by various European governments. However, it created a somewhat decentralized production model which led to territorial infighting between different manufacturing facilities located throughout Europe. The problems within Airbus demonstrated how coalitions can decrease productivity and efficiency. Communication between factions had completed broken down. For example, whereas one production facility had modernized its modeling software, other facilities had fallen behind and were using older versions which caused compatibility issues between hardware components. As noted, the debacle exposed a bigger issue at Airbus. Despite political boundaries, executives must implement consistent systems and policies and strive to promote a unified workforce. Managers must also learn to trust, listen and sometimes accept the advice of their employees. Better analytics and systems integration can also help to mitigate production problems. Arguably, Airbus’ greatest asset was its political diversification and its influence on market forces. Concerned stakeholders within governments and the airline industry were not willing to allow Airbus to fail over the costly wiring debacle. The company was indeed fortunate that they are the only other competitor to Boeing. Supporters believe that Airbus helps to advance the airline industry by fostering innovation and efficiency that ultimately benefits government, airline services and the consumer. Questions: What are some ways to reduce the silo effect created by incompatible software systems? How can processes become more centralized in a company driven by public-private partnership? Is it appropriate for governments to bail out large companies in order to keep market forces in check? Article: The Seasoned Executive’s Decision Making Style Top-level executives are always learning and evolving in their ability to make key decisions. There are four styles of decision making: decisive, flexible, hierarchic and integrative. Decisive people value “action, speed, efficiency and consistency”. They stick to a plan and value the characteristics of honesty, loyalty and clarity. Those who adhere to a flexible style are distinguished by their adaptability. When faced with a problem, flexible decision makers will gather enough new data to mount an attack and change direction. Hierarchic decision makers are known for their analytical behavior. They gather a great deal of information before making decisions and will “readily challenge other’s views”. Integrative decision makers use a broad range of techniques to determine solutions to problems. They take into account multiple elements which usually result in multiple courses of action. Most managers don’t fall into just one category and seasoned ones will generally develop their own style based on pieces of each category. Successful leaders will completely change beliefs/styles from the start of their careers as line managers all the way up to the highest-ranking positions. As one moves up the ladder, they generally will move further away from the action. This makes it easy to lose touch with what’s truly going on within the organization. One of the most important characteristics of successful management require is to maintain an open communication style with subordinates. This provides a top-level executive with the information they need to make the most well-informed decisions. Of utmost concern to managers is the importance of evolving throughout one’s career. Failing in this area can be “fatal to one’s career”. It is critical not to revert to lower level management styles as you move up through the ranks. A senior executive who acts like a line manager, micro-managing every phase of the work, will not succeed. Understanding how to trust, train and engage lower-level managers is paramount to executive success. Questions: What are some common mistakes made by upper level managers? What decision-making style would you use? How can managers reduce uncertainty and remain “in-touch” with operations at lower-levels of the organization. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A GOOD DISCOUNT

2016-09-21