1: 2017 was a public relations nightmare for United Airlines.

Several incidents involving United Air employees enforcing a variety of rules, regulations, and protocols in interactions with customers caused international outcry. First, in March, two teenagers wearing leggings for their flight from Minneapolis to Denver were stopped by the gate agent and not allowed to board for violating the United Airlines travel perk program. With travel perk passes, individuals fly free or for heavily discounted fares and are thus subject to a stricter dress code than regular passengers. The longstanding policy requires that those who enjoy the perks of airline employment, which includes free travel passes for family and guests, present themselves in a way that represents the airline well. So, the intent of a stricter dress code—a written code that all employees are aware of—is that the airline wants to present itself in a positive, favorable light.

United defended its decision via Twitter, “Leggings are not inappropriate attire except in the case of someone traveling as a pass rider.”66 A second, more serious incident occurred when David Dao, a doctor, who needed to see his patients the following morning, was aboard a Louisville-bound flight from Chicago in April.67 The flight was full, but four United employees needed to get to Louisville at the last minute to staff a flight, and it was announced that four people would need to give up their seats or else the flight would be canceled. When no one volunteered, gate agents invoked the airline’s involuntary denial-of-boarding process. That means that customers who had paid the lowest fares, were not connecting to other flights, and had checked in last were at the top of the list to be removed.

Customers’ frequent-flyer status also was another consideration.

United officials say that this is the procedure they followed in selecting Dr. Dao, his wife, and another couple for removal. After Dr. Dao declined to leave, United Air officials called Chicago Department of Aviation police officers to try to persuade him to go. However, Dr. Dao tried to keep the officers from pulling him out of his seat before being dragged out of it and forcibly removing him from the plane. Several cell phone videos captured the incident and soon went viral.

Dao suffered a broken nose and concussion after his head was smashed into an armrest. United policy allowed for the involuntary removal of passengers from flights, although this time United was not as defensive. Dao later filed a lawsuit for its actions.68 The suit was settled in late April. In addition, two of the Chicago airport security officers were fired for their role in the episode.69 Then, in late April, a third incident, in Houston, involved a soon-to-be-wed couple.70 Michael and Amber were headed to Costa Rica for their wedding. When they boarded, they noticed a man sleeping in the row where their seats were assigned.

Instead of disturbing him, they found some seats three rows away and sat there instead. A flight attendant asked them to return to their seats, which they did. However, a U.S. marshall approached them soon after and ejected them from the plane.

According to United statements, the couple “repeatedly” tried to sit in upgraded seats and would not follow the crew’s instructions, and, as such, they were within their power to eject the customers.

Then, in March 2018, a passenger’s dog in a pet carrier died in an overhead compartment.

71 The passenger had been instructed by a flight attendant to put the dog there shortly after she boarded. The passenger was very adamant that she did not want to do that, but the flight attendant kept requesting that she comply because the pet carrier was a safety hazard. Eventually, the pet owner complied.

When the flight arrived at its destination, the owner discovered that it had died. United responded that it is not the policy to put animals in the overhead compartment. The company said it was investigating who had put the dog in the overhead compartment and why.

These incidents suggest that employees do not have much latitude or flexibility when dealing with day-to-day policy issues. With airlines trying to minimize costs and boost efficiency, perhaps the organization structure was more focused on following rules rather than serving the customer. Many attribute this inflexibility to the strict rule-following bureaucracy created by United’s managers.72 In such an environment, employees may be reluctant to deviate from the rules, especially since employees are aware of the precedent that suggests that anyone who breaks the rules faces termination.

Discussion Questions

1. Evaluate how United Airlines handled each of these incidents.

Do you think that United Airlines was within its power to respond the way its employees did? Why or why not?

2. How would you describe United Airlines’ view of formalization?

Do you think it’s appropriate? Explain.

3. Using information from the chapter about the contingency factors that favor either the mechanistic or the organic model of organizational design, what do you think United Airlines’ organizational structure should resemble?

Be sure to think about this in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

4. What do you think United Airlines should do in the future?

What suggestions or enhancements might you have for its organizational structure?

5. How do employees’ actions reflect an organization’s stance as far as being responsible and ethical? How might United’s managers encourage employees to be more responsible and ethical, even when rules must be followed?