Lastly, to sum up the Congruence Model, ‘may be seen to engender a level of confidence about the desire outputs that will be produced following change interventions that focus on the identified variables and their interrelationships’ (Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2006 p. 107) . This means that, to enhance Boeing’s system, variables (inputs/problems) need to be indentified and analyzed carefully otherwise the outcomes would not be able to adapt to the ‘changes’. In Boeing’s case, the successfully-created Congruence Model will lead managers to various choices, whether to downsize, operating new communication system and/or updating technology systems.
These are all recommendations that will address the Boeing’s importance within the implementation of diagnosis for change. The second model that will be considered is the Burke-Litwin Model. This diagnostic model examines organizational change and performance; it includes transformational issues, which contains external environment, mission and strategy, leadership and culture and transactional sources of change, which include structure, management practices, systems, climate, task requirements and individual skills, motivation and organizational performance.
Burke and Litwin (1992) argue that transformational change occurs as a response to the external environment and directly affects the organizational mission and strategy, the leadership and the culture. Transitional change deals with psychological and organizational variables that predict and control the motivational and performance consequence of the work group climate (Burke and Litwin 1992; Hansen 2004). The main factor of that model is that change flows from the external environment and influences all variable factors.
By analysis of twelve Boeing’s organizational variables of the model, the external environment change, such as increasing competitive pressures and technological progress is the transformational milestone of the Boeing situation, which leads to significant changes within the organization. Consequently, focusing not on airy vision statements, but concentration on the win at all costs approach is the other reason of implementing the change (Palmer, Dunford & Akin 2006).
Management was trying to cut the costs in all possible ways, by downsizing their operations, reestablishing relationships with their suppliers and updating technology systems (Boeing 1998). The lack of strong leadership providing general organizational directions and exhibiting model behavior for employees is another aspect of the transformational model. The fourth issue of change is the cultural synthesis, followed by the merge of Boeing Company with McDonnell Douglas. These transformational changes have a great effect on the relationships between the organizational variables and performance.
Thus, in terms of the structure of the company, changes were needed to be implemented to overcome the bureaucratic structure, outdated technological systems, and unnecessary processes in a company. The process of automating the production line was a struggle for Boeing. In 2001, they implemented a Web-based procurement system that allowed suppliers to monitor stock levels and replenish supplies when they dipped below a predetermined minimum. Palmer, Dunford & Akin (2006) cite that the management decided to diversify from the traditional commercial airline industry.
The aim of the diversification was to add more stability to business by diversifying into information services and the space industry. All these factors led to the demoralization of Boeing employee’s morale. As a result, the issues above had a great effect on motivation, which in turn impacted on individual and organizational performance. Therefore, diagnosis of the Boeing situation by using Burke-Litwin model helps to simplify the complex situation and identify priorities for attention (Palmer, Dunford ; Akin 2006).
To sum this up, this model helps to highlight interconnectedness of different organizational properties, such as strategy and structure and provide a guide to the sequence of actions to take in a change situation. The last organization design framework, designed by Jay Galbraith, is called The Star Model. According to Burke (2002), the Star Model is used to design policies that guide organizational decision making and their behavior. Furthermore, Burke (2002, p. 2) adds that ‘organization design describes the components of organization design in terms of the Star Model’.
This means that, this model provides a holistic framework by using five different components and the alignment will successfully turn the business design into a better shape/position. Basically, the five components include strategy, structure, processes, reward systems and people policies. The five factors must be internally consistent to enable effective behavior (Gil 2000). The strategy will drive Boeing’s structure to a clearer pathway, while the structure will concentrate on Boeing’s target market and market segment which is mainly airlines and passengers.
Once the five components fits together within Boeing, enhancement of staff performance will be overcome (Burke 2002). After the Boeing designer chooses a basic structure, lateral relationships need to be added to the design to overcome its negative aspects and lastly to deliver the best service for a customer’s wants and needs (McIntosh 2001). McIntosh (2001) further states that most of today’s management of change (such as Boeing case) are considered as a dynamic organization, and that the firm crucially require designing a strategic organization thinking and plan.
So, it is essential to identify what are the main driven forces that lead to planning and the change management. In addition, Boeing has been dealing with the pressure from fashion and trends externally. As Palmer, Dunford ; Akin (2006) suggest Boeing has gone through a series of changes under the direction of their CEO during 2001. The changes often came from the external company, so the Star Model might provide Boeing a sense of recognition to either transform changes to fit in or do nothing and stay as they are in the industry and fade away slowly.
There are various other issues to be considered when diagnosing change. Managers are often aware of change issues, mainly external issues that would raise their concerns. The essential issues of Boeing including the customers and how managers should adapt to fit the change will be discussed. Starting with the change manager, for the Boeing case, a change manager as “director” would be the most appropriate. As Palmer, Dunford and Akin (2006) state, directors often use diagnostic model/s to build up an extra knowledge-base for the staff and pinpoint what needs to be change whether internally or externally.
If applying to Boeing case, since they are in jeopardy of survival, a new technology system needs to be created in order to enhance and realign Boeing’s system. If the Boeing’s manager follows the step-by-step procedure well, other factors including safety, technology impact and Boeing’s target market will be satisfied. In addition, Vokurka & McCaskey (2001) claim that integration skills and communication skills from workers will be increased and this will lead to meeting the demand expectation from the customers in the future.
Secondly, Boeing’s target market or their customers need to be considered when diagnosing change. In this case, the main focus of the Boeing organization is manufacturing commercial jetliners. After recognizing the demand for change in the company and merging with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing has expanded their market by production of aircrafts for military needs. In addition, Boeing designs and assembles missiles, satellites, rotorcraft, electronic and defense systems, launch vehicles and advanced information and communication systems.
As a major service provider to NASA, Boeing provides parts for the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. The company also presents many military and commercial airline support services. Thus, by creating products and services which meet customers’ needs Boeing can retain its place as one of the largest U. S. exporters in terms of sales (Boeing 2008). In conclusion, the three models will have a variety of impacts towards diagnosing change within Boeing. Boeing needs a new framework to assist in adapting to change.
The first model, discussed the Congruence Model emphasizes the stability of consistency and the internal structure of Boeing. The second model, the Burke-Litwin Model will assist Boeing in the transitional process especially in adapting to the new cultural style and boosting Boeing’s performance by indentifying the external variable factors. The last model, The Star Model, will help to guide Boeing into a better position by adding the five main components and help Boeing’s manager to plan more strategically to adapt well in the dynamic world.
In addition, Boeing contains other issues when diagnosing change, whether their target markets (customers) and external environment, especially the rapid change if technology. This is why change in managers need to be apply and adapt to it. For the Boeing case, a change manager as director would be the most suitable one, since Boeing requires a brand new system to rejuvenate their structure, whether internally or externally, the manager must be familiar with each of the diagnostic models.