Assessment Brief – Level Five Undergraduate Module Code: HR0

Assessment Brief – Level Five Undergraduate Module Code: HR0277 Module Title: CHANGE, WORK AND DIVERSITY

Analyze the strategic change program at British Airways (BA), focusing on the internal and external factors influencing its implementation, the nature of the changes, the change management strategy employed, and the challenges faced. Additionally, evaluate the resistance to change from one stakeholder perspective—management, crew, or the public—and provide recommendations for overcoming this resistance. Support your analysis with relevant theories and practical examples.

Paper For Above instruction

The British Airways (BA) industrial disputes, especially those involving its management and cabin crew, stand as a significant case illustrating the complexities of strategic change in a global organization. Understanding these disputes requires an exploration of the internal and external contexts that influenced BA's change initiatives, the specifics of the strategic alterations introduced, the management strategies employed, and the challenges encountered during implementation. Furthermore, evaluating resistance from a stakeholder perspective—either management, crew, or the public—provides insight into the practical application of change management theories and best practices.

Introduction

Strategic change in large organizations like British Airways is often driven by external pressures such as globalization, technological advancement, and competition, coupled with internal factors like organizational culture and operational inefficiencies. The BA case exemplifies how external market forces and internal organizational dynamics intertwine, producing profound change initiatives that sometimes provoke resistance and industrial unrest. Analyzing these elements provides valuable lessons on managing complex change processes within multinational corporations.

Internal and External Factors Influencing Changes at BA

External factors exerted significant influence on BA's strategic changes. The increasing competition from low-cost carriers and the liberalization of airline markets compelled BA to reassess its operational and pricing strategies. The advent of deregulation in the airline industry led to intensified price competition and customer expectations for better service at lower costs (Ghemawat & Nelson, 2012). Moreover, technological innovations, such as online booking systems and modern aircraft, necessitated organizational adjustments (Bieker, 2010). Political and regulatory shifts, including EU aviation policies, further shaped BA's strategic environment.

Internally, BA faced organizational challenges such as outdated work practices, unionized labor relations resistant to change, and a need to optimize operational efficiencies. The company's entrenched corporate culture often conflicted with the push for a more flexible, customer-oriented approach. Employee dissatisfaction, especially among cabin crew, stemmed from perceived threats to job security and working conditions, exacerbating resistance to change (Brewster & Hegewisch, 2012). The failure to align internal culture with external pressures created a tense environment that fueled industrial disputes.

The Nature of Strategic Changes at BA

The strategic changes employed by BA centered around cost-cutting measures, restructuring of work practices, and alterations in employment terms. One notable initiative was the introduction of new work schedules and contractual arrangements aimed at increasing Flexibility and reducing operational costs. The airline also sought to modernize its fleet and improve customer services, aligning with global standards (Kirkpatrick & Ackroyd, 2012).

However, these changes often involved controversial measures such as the imposition of new work conditions, attempts to diminish union influence, and efforts to shift from traditional cabin crew arrangements to more flexible contracts (Sparrow & Cooper, 2014). The strategy reflected a shift towards a more competitive, lean organization but sparked extensive resistance from staff unions representing cabin crew, who viewed these modifications as threats to job security, working conditions, and professional identity.

Change Management Strategies Employed

BA's management adopted a combination of top-down directives supplemented by negotiation efforts with unions. The initial approach was characterized by a degree of coercion, including attempts to impose new employment contracts without union agreement, leading to strikes and industrial action (Harrison, 2014). The management’s approach reflected a traditional instrumental view of change, emphasizing cost-efficiency and organizational control.

In response to mounting resistance, some interventions shifted towards more consultative strategies involving dialogue with union leaders and attempts to incorporate employee feedback. Nonetheless, these efforts often fell short of resolving underlying conflicts, leading to protracted disputes. The reliance on legal and disciplinary measures further strained relationships, illustrating the difficulty of managing change in highly unionized environments (McKenna, 2013). Overall, BA’s strategy highlighted the importance of balancing managerial authority with stakeholder engagement in change processes.

Challenges and Difficulties in Managing Change

The primary challenges faced by BA included overcoming union resistance, maintaining operational continuity, and balancing stakeholder interests. Union opposition was rooted in fears of job cuts, diminished working conditions, and loss of influence, which led to strikes that disrupted operations and tarnished the airline’s reputation (Hoggett & Cule, 2012). Efforts to impose change unilaterally often exacerbated resistance, indicating a disconnect between management strategies and employee perceptions.

Additionally, the financial implications of industrial disputes included revenue losses and reputational damage, creating pressure to resolve conflicts swiftly. Managing the change process within an environment of union hostility necessitated considerable negotiation skills, strategic communication, and trust-building, which were sometimes lacking (Cameron & Green, 2015). Moreover, the competitive pressures of the industry amplified urgency, but the organizational inertia persisted, illustrating the complexity of implementing strategic change in large, unionized firms.

Stakeholder Perspective Evaluation: Management Viewpoint

From the management perspective, the strategic change initiatives aimed to enhance competitiveness and financial performance amid industry deregulation and technological evolution. The core issue was balancing cost reduction with maintaining employee morale and customer service standards. Theoretically, this aligns with Kotter’s (1995) model of leading change, emphasizing urgency, coalition building, and communication. However, the apparent top-down approach often underestimated the importance of stakeholder engagement, leading to resistance.

Practically, managers faced difficulties in convincing staff of the necessity of change, especially when communication was perceived as coercive. Resistance manifested through strikes, absenteeism, and negative publicity, highlighting the failure to effectively communicate vision and facilitate participation (Buchanan, 2014). The management’s challenge was to reconcile organizational aims with employee concerns, which was insufficiently addressed, causing prolonged disputes.

Stakeholder Perspective Evaluation: Cabin Crew

The cabin crew stakeholders experienced the strategic change as a direct threat to their job security, working conditions, and professional identity. The introduction of new contractual arrangements and work schedules was perceived as an erosion of rights and an increase in job precarity. According to Lewin’s (1947) Change Model, resistance often springs from a lack of awareness or understanding; in this case, crew members lacked confidence that the changes would benefit organizational sustainability without compromising their welfare.

Their concerns centered on job cuts, increased workload, and diminished influence within the organization. Resistance strategies included striking, collective bargaining, and public protests, which significantly hindered the change process. Consequently, the crew's resistance reflected their perceived loss of control and trust in management, emphasizing the need for participatory approaches and transparent communication during change initiatives.

Recommendations for Overcoming Resistance

Effective strategies to mitigate resistance include adopting participatory change management approaches, such as Kotter’s (1998) eight-step process or Lewin’s (1947) unfreeze-change-refreeze framework. Engaging stakeholders early and fostering open, honest communication can build trust and reduce uncertainty (Cameron & Green, 2015). For instance, involving union representatives in designing change plans can enhance ownership and commitment, mitigating opposition.

Training and development programs can also prepare employees for change, alleviating fears of inadequacy or job loss. Moreover, aligning organizational goals with employee welfare through fair contractual negotiations and transparent dialogue fosters a collaborative environment conducive to sustainable change (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Employing transformational leadership styles, which motivate and inspire stakeholders, can further facilitate smoother transitions (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

In conclusion, managing resistance requires understanding stakeholder concerns, employing inclusive strategies, and ensuring clear communication. For BA, integrating these approaches could have alleviated tensions and fostered a shared vision for future success.

Conclusion

The British Airways case exemplifies the intricacies of strategic change management in a complex, highly unionized, and competitive environment. External pressures such as deregulation and globalization, alongside internal organizational dynamics, drive significant transformation initiatives. While cost-efficiency and modernization are vital, failing to effectively manage stakeholder resistance, especially among staff, can lead to industrial unrest and reputational harm. Applying theoretical frameworks like Kotter’s and Lewin’s models provides valuable insights into designing and executing change processes that are inclusive, transparent, and sustainable. The BA experience underscores that balancing organizational goals with stakeholder needs is critical for successful change management in large organizations.

References

• Bieker, J. (2010). Airline industry technology trends. Journal of Aviation Management, 8(3), 45-59.
• Brewster, C., & Hegewisch, A. (2012). Policy and practice in European human resource management. Routledge.
• Buchanan, D. (2014). Managing change: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 950-977.
• Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page.
• Ghemawat, P., & Nelson, P. (2012). Competition and strategy in airline industries. Harvard Business Review, 62(4), 77-85.
• Harrison, R. (2014). Industrial disputes in the airline industry: Case studies and management strategies. Employee Relations Journal, 36(2), 165-183.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice-Hall.
• Hoggett, P., & Cule, M. (2012). Power relations in industrial change. Sociology, 46(4), 720-735.
• Kirkpatrick, I., & Ackroyd, S. (2012). Managing strategic change in the airline industry. Routledge.
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.