(Solution) 07-28298: Leading and Managing Change and Crisis


Solution for 07-28298: Leading and Managing Change and Crisis at the bottom of this page



07-28298: Leading and Managing Change and Crisis

Programme Title
MSc Management
Module Title Leading & Managing Change & Crisis
Module Code
07 28298
Assignment Title
Crisis Management Case Study Report
Semester 1&2
Although change is ever present in organizations today, a crisis can result from most anything an organization is unprepared to deal with. Successful crisis management aims to minimize the impact of disruptive events that can result in loss of life, equipment, earnings, customers, reputation, market share or other future business prospects.

In this module we consider the entire system analysing, for example, factors that can preceded and influence crisis such as policy changes, regulatory oversight, licensing criteria, financial concerns, environmental change, or organizational culture. Blending theory and practice, students will work in teams, applying course material in the analysis of real-world crisis management challenges. The aim is to produce critically thinking, proactive crisis managers who have the tools to respond to the range of organizational issues emerging in workplaces today.

28298-02 : Group work Reflective Report : Coursework (20%)
28298-03 : Individual Final Assessment : Coursework (80%)
Assessment Methods & Exceptions
Group assignment – (500 word reflective report) – 20%;
Individual assignment (2000 words) – 80%.Reassessment:
2500 word individual assignment – 100%
07-28298: Leading and Managing Change and Crisis Assignment

The individual assessment for this module takes the form of an assignment based upon detailed analysis of an actual crisis that really happened. The crisis is your choice but should be agreed with the module leader in advance. However, you should not choose a crisis that has been/will be discussed in class. You will be provided with a list of these restricted crises during the assignment briefing in class. You should also provide evidence of wide reading, drawing on a good range of journal articles and other sources when writing the assignment. Your paper MUST INCLUDE the following format: Introduction a) Provide a very brief overview of your case (where, when, what happened) b) Explain which theories you will be applying c) where you will apply them (which section), and d)why these are the best theories to use. I. Pre-Conditions Crises rarely occur ‘out of the blue’, instead there are usually several warning signs. Discuss the warning signs and why people did not respond adequately in your particular crisis case. II. Trigger—Only pick one! Discuss the point in time that the crisis kicked-off—and why. The trigger should not be something such as: The pilots did not…The mayor of the town was…The CEO of the company did… III. Crisis Discuss how, when and why the crisis escalated to produce the greatest damage. IV. Post-Crisis Discuss what happened after the acute phase was over; What were the lessons learned to prevent a future crisis event—were they ‘learned’ or ignored post-crisis? Did the organisation change after the crisis? Summary Consider all phases of your analysis. In sum, what should we have learned from your paper’s analysis and how did the theoretical frameworks you selected help us understand this crisis better.

Solution (Boeing 737 Max Crisis management report)

1. Introduction

The Boeing 737 Max crisis began in October 2018 when a newly acquired aircraft belonging to Lion Air Flight 610 crashed just moments after takeoff in Indonesia. In March 2019, another newly acquired aircraft belonging to Ethiopian Airlines crashed just moments after takeoff, resulting in the eventual grounding of the aircraft. This report seeks to assess the Boeing 737 Max crisis using decision making theories and the black swan theory. The black swan theory will focus on rational choice and will be applied in the precondition section, while the decision making theory will apply in the crisis section. The black swan theory is ideal in this scenario because the accidents came as a surprise, while the decision making theory is ideal in this scenario because it highlights the judgment the management could have made to avert the crisis.     

2. Preconditions

The warning sign ahead of Boeing’s 737 Max crisis included a cockpit warning light that indicated the presence of a mechanical fault on the plane. In particular, the Boeing 737 Max’s manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) was designed to push the plane’s nose downwards as a preventive measure against stalling whenever it was deemed necessary. This reaction was automatic, concerning the angle of attack (AOA) data of the aircraft. Nonetheless, where a faulty AOA reading was encountered, the system ended up pushing the plane’s nose downwards unnecessarily, increasing the chances of a crash. Despite these warning signs, the plane’s manufacturer Boeing never acted on the issue urgently but rather kept promising its clients of the release of software fix (Spinks, 2019).

According to Gelles and Kitroeff (2019), the warning signs were never responded to adequately because the safety feature that was at fault in Lion Air Flight 610’s was, in fact, a premium add-on. In other words, the warning light about the anti-stall system was an optional feature in just 20 percent of the 737 Max aircraft that had been sold despite it being a standard safety feature. The ill-fated Lion Air flight 610 lacked the warning system as it was among the aircraft manufactured without it. Seemingly, Boeing was also confused about the safety feature and ended up giving a wrong interpretation of it to its clients (Feeley, 2019).  

The warning signs and the failure by Boeing’s management to respond quickly can be elaborated effectively using the analogy of the black swan theory. According to Taleb (2007), a “black swan event” entails three distinctive characteristics that include them being outliers (not considered regular), carry an extreme impact, and attract explanations from people once it occurs. In other words, the failure by Boeing to read warning signs on their Max 737 aircraft and respond quickly to avert the crisis can be attributed to the fact that the warning sign was irregular, and as a result, the crisis led people into concocting explanations about it to make it predictable.

The aspect of a “black swan event” being an outlier particularly explains why the Boeing management did little to respond to it adequately. Although air accidents are not completely stoppable, historically accidents in the industry are so rare. For example, in the whole of 2017 airlines had zero number of accident deaths involving passenger jets (Watt, 2020). The rarity of incidents or accidents may likely have made the Boeing management into overlooking warning signs on their aircraft until it turned tragic. Still, even after the Lion Air Flight 610 accident in Indonesia, Boeing did not respond adequately to the crisis until a second Max 737 aircraft belonging to Ethiopian airlines crashed in March 2019 in almost similar circumstance to the first accident (Campbell, 2019)………………………………………………..Click the purchase icon ABOVE to purchase full solution at $20

07-28298: Leading and Managing Change and Crisis