1. What elements about the Airbus consortium reflect the description of the cult
ID: 388550 • Letter: 1
Question
1. What elements about the Airbus consortium reflect the description of the culture clusters (GLOBE) and dimensions (Hofstede & Kluckhorn)
2) How would you define the concept of 'economic patriotism'? What role do you think it may have played in the problems besetting Airbus and the decision not to go ahead with the EADS-BAE merger?
3) To what extent do you consider that the wiring problems with the A380 were a reflection of the way the Airbus company was organized despite the merger of the national components in 2001?
4) If you were a consultant to Airbus what advice would you give the corporate executives in order to move the company forward after some of their struggles?
Explanation / Answer
Airbus is a diverse company that combined four different countries with different cultures: German, Spanish, British, and France. These countries were working together to form A380, the most technological advanced plane in the world. Airbus employees were transferred to different countries for career advancement, which would force them to adopt to a new cultural environment. GLOBE is a global leadership and organizational behavior effectiveness, and Airbus relates to it by combining the four countries together on this project. But they did not account for cultural difference in leadership roles and behaviors of the workers. The countries had different power distances. For example, the “French managers tended to be distant from their subordinates, while British and German employees felt they had greater freedom to talk back.” This could be an issue for employment because Airbus would send employees to different countries, and they would not know the power distance in the new culture. An employee originally from British could be sent to France and think he could give opinions about the project directly to a French manager.This would be conflicting because of the cultural difference in the dimension of power distance, the French would see it as disrespect. Another cultural dimension would be uncertainty avoidance; “the British had higher tolerance for uncertainty than the German or the French,” so the British would take more chances. The French and German wanted more procedures and didn’t take as much risks, so it could be conflicting to the countries if the British wants to take a chance at uncertainty. But even with these different cultural dimension, the countries showed in-group collectivism which was explained in the Hofstede’s book. It was said that “we cannot escape the families, school systems and societies that formed us,” and with that said, the individuals expressed pride and loyalty to their organizations and families; that is “why the British-French-German mix, with its complementary traits, appeared to work better.” All four countries had cultural differences that were explained by the dimensions of culture, but they were still considering making a deal to join together.
Economic patriotism is the transfer of money which benefits a particular group. Airbus used economic nationalism to help them gain profit from certain people. They had “private transactions among economic actors by discriminating against foreigners in the name of the national interest.” This could be problematic if EADS-BAE merged because they both have different contacts and relations with other countries and groups. If one country has tight ties with foreigners, but Airbus discriminates against them, conflict will arise. All four countries would want to include their business with others who benefit them, but if Airbus only associates with certain groups, not all groups from all countries would be chosen. Some countries may even see the economic nationalism as unethical or not as beneficial to them. Countries would want to expand and remain in relationships with others, but if Airbus refused to cooperate, countries may lose their connections.
The wiring problem was too complicated just like the organization of Airbus. It was said, “to understand why wiring is critical, you have to know that there are almost 1,200 functions to control the plane, which takes 98,000 wires and 40,000 connectors.” This means that you must understand ever function there is to know before organizing the company, but they clearly did not account for every function which was problematic for them. This complex wiring reflects on the organization of Airbus because just like how the wiring is critical to control and operate the plane, the organization was critical too. The way Airbus was organized did not connect the four countries together. They were too different from each other. If one of the 40,000 connectors of the plane were not connected, it could lead to a domino effect of the plane malfunctioning. If the countries did not connect with each other, conflict will arise which will lead to downfalls of the company. The fact that there were almost 1,200 functions to control the plane reflects to how there were a lot of things to do in order for Airbus to be organized properly. They did not consider all the functions which made Airbus lose control of their organization. The wiring of the plane was as complex as how Airbus was organized, it was hard and would take a lot of time and effort to come together.
I would suggest if they wanted to benefit their company they should merge EADS-BAE together. They should learn about each other’s differences and come to a compromise. With their combined forces, they should be able to successfully succeed in operating Airbus, maximizing their profits. It’s always better to have different suggestions to decisions, and with EADS-BAE there would be opinions regarding the civil and military side compared to the space and defense side. They need to learn about each other’s cultures and how they operate, so they can either adopt to one culture or come to a compromise. Different opinions give them better options in doing things that can improve speed, productivity, knowledge, cost less, performance, etc. moving forward in Airbus. It was said that “they wanted the deal to happen. But they did not want it enough to close ranks and sweep away the obstacles on the table.” As a consultant, I would want the best for them, and I believe the best way for them to succeed is to want to be successful. They need to settle their differences and “close ranks and sweep away the obstacles on the table” to become successful and merge together.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.