SECTION 1

Case Situation 1(10 marks)

The Boeing 737 MAX is the fourth generation of the venerable Boeing 737 passenger liners. Although the airliner was announced to the public as far back as 2011, it didn't begin commercial service until 2017. That was when Malindo. Air, a Malaysian aviation company, began commercial flights from Kuala Lumpur Singapore.

According to a Boeing document available online, the company has had 5,012 orders for the aircraft, and shipped 387. Unfortunately, two of those aircraft crashed, killing 346 people.

The problem, which Jason Perlow explains with great clarity, is that the 737 MAX wasn't just another aircraft in Boeing's line. The 737 MAX was a rushed response to competitive pressures from Airbus, who was shipping a new, more fuel efficient variant of the Airbus A320.

Rather than designing an entirely new airframe, Boeing decided to hot rod its well-proven 737 airframe. It added bigger engines, which would have required taller landing gear. Instead of doing so, Boeing relocated the engines and -- here's what apparently got people killed -- compensated for the flight characteristic changes in software.

The software was flawed and people died. Jason argues, and I agree with him, that software can only do so much. This was apparently an aircraft that was incredibly difficult to fly and -- in an analogy to the movie industry adage of "we'll fix it in post" -- the company decided to compensate for the flight challenges with code.

In the first crash, on Oct. 29, 2018, Lion Air flight 610 dove into the Java Sea 13 minutes after takeoff from Jakarta, Indonesia, killing 189 people. The flight crew made a distress call shortly before losing control. That aircraft was almost brand-new, having arrived at Lion Air three months earlier.

The second crash occurred on March 10, 2019 when Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 departed Addis Ababa Bole International Airport bound for Nairobi, Kenya. Just after takeoff, the pilot radioed a distress call and was given immediate clearance to return and land. But before the crew could make it back, the aircraft crashed 40 miles from the airport.

Those engines, though, required Boeing to make critical design changes. Because they're bigger, and because the 737 sits so low to the ground (a deliberate 737 design choice to let it serve small airports with limited ground equipment), Boeing moved the engines slightly forward and raised them higher under the wing. (If you place an engine too close to the ground, it can suck in debris while the plane is taxiing.) That change allowed Boeing to accommodate the engines without completely redesigning the 737 fuselage -- a fuselage that hasn't changed much in 50 years.

On Oct. 11, 2019, an international flight safety panel issued a Joint Authorities Technical Review that faulted both the FAA and Boeing on several fronts. For the FAA, it said the agency needs to modernize its aircraft certification process to account for increasingly complex automated systems by ensuring that aircraft incorporate fail-safe design principles that don't rely too heavily on pilot input.

For Boeing's part, the report cited the company's "inadequate communications" to the FAA about MCAS, inadequate pilot training and shortage of technical staff. The review was conducted by representatives from NASA, the FAA and civil aviation authorities from Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Singapore, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates.

On March 12, 2019, Trump tweeted that airplanes are "becoming far too complex to fly." The reality isn't quite that simple. Commercial airliners have used automated systems for decades (that's what an automatic pilot is). The Lockheed L-1011, introduced in 1972, could land itself. Most airliners flying today also are "fly by wire," meaning that a pilot's commands are carried as electronic signals (rather than over hydraulic lines) to an aircraft's control services. Flight computers also continually stabilize an aircraft during flight without input from the flight crew. Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies for this interaction, but explaining those could take a book.

1.1) Hint: Click on about the airline incidences from the internet and read about the airline's Mission, Goals, and Strategies and the incidences in detail. Read in depth and mention what's your assessment of the company's wrong strategic decisions?

1.2) What right strategic actions should have been taken to avoid the situation.

Case Situation 2(10 marks)

It gets more than 3,000 applications a day. And it's no wonder! With a massage every other week, onsite laundry, swimming pool and spa, free delicious all-you-can-eat gourmet meals, what more could an employee want? Sounds like an ideal job, doesn't it? However, at Google, many people are demonstrating by their decisions to leave the company that all those perks (and these are just a few) aren't enough to keep them there. As one analyst said, "Yes, Google's making gobs of money. Yes, it's full of smart people. Yes, it's a wonderful place to work. So why are so many people leaving?" Google has been in the top five list of "best companies to work for" by Fortune magazine for four years running and was number one on the list for two of those four years. But make no mistake. Google's executives decided to offer all these fabulous perks for several reasons: to attract the best knowledge workers it can in an intensely competitive, cutthroat market; to help employees work long hours and not have to deal with time-consuming personal chores; to show employees they're valued; and to have employees remain Googlers (the name used for employees) for many years. But a number of Googlers have jumped ship and given up these fantastic benefits to go out on their own. For instance, Sean Knapp and two colleagues, brothers Bismarck and Belsasar Lepe, came up with an idea on how to handle Web video. They left Google, or as one person put it, "expelled themselves from paradise to start their own company." When the threesome left the company, Google really wanted them and their project to stay. Google offered them a "blank check." But the trio realized they would do all the hard work and Google would own the product. So off they went, for the excitement of a start-up. If this were an isolated occurrence, it would be easy to write off. But it's not. Other talented Google employees have done the same thing. In fact, there are so many of them who have left that they've formed an informal alumni club of ex-Googlers turned entrepreneurs.

Discussion Questions:

2.1. What's it like to work at Google? (Hint: Go to Google's Web site and click on About Google. Find the section on Jobs at Google and go from there.) What's your assessment of the company's work environment?

2. 2. Google is doing a lot for its employees, but not enough to retain some talented employees. Using what you've learned from studying the various motivation theories, what does this situation tell you about employee motivation?

2.3. If you were managing a team of Google employees, how would you keep them motivated?

SECTION 2

A

3.1 Discuss with the help of an example, what leadership style should be adopted by a manager who has been allocated a team that requires direct supervision? Recall the concept of leadership style in order to answer this question.

3.2. "Leaders vary their leadership style in different circumstances". State your opinion and example to substantiate this assertion.

3.3 Suppose you are a manager of an organization and hold a democratic leadership style. You want to provide opportunities for innovation, creativity and personal growth to your employees. Which stage of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory does this relate to?

SECTION 2

B

Mintzberg suggests that managerial roles should encompass interpersonal, decisional, and informational roles. Clearly this is an idealized vision of the manager.

4.1 To what extent is it unethical to expect a manager to have such a broad base of skills and abilities?

4.2 Do managerial models like this reflect the reality of day-to-day management? Explain.

Q:5 Brief essay on "How to prepare for your first job interview."