Boeing’s Crisis Management Strategies
Student’s Name
Name of the University
Course Name
Instructor Name
Date
Boeing’s Crisis Management Strategies
Crisis management experts have, in recent years, analyzed Boeing Company’s preparedness in dealing with hazards. Between October 2018 and March 2019, two Boeing’s airships of the model 737 Max involved in severe accidents that spared no life. On March 10, 2019, one of Boeing 737 Max belonging to Ethiopian Airlines crashed shortly after taking off and killed 157 passengers. This scenario happened barely five months after the company’s plane had crashed in Indonesia, and destroyed 189 passengers. Statistics from the black box showed that the computerized safety systems influenced both accidents (Tangel et al. 2019). Therefore, Boeing Max’s accident occurred due to technical difficulties beyond the pilot’s capability. Collaborating stakeholders, training, and increasing pilot influence on the MCAS mean Boeing’s crisis management strategies were effective towards enhancing competitiveness to remain relevant in the aviation business.
Investigations by Boeing’s experts, federal investigators, and the Congress to understand this accident’s cause revealed various issues. First, it emerged that the anti-stall system’s malfunctions caused both accidents. This critical reason compelled the company to ground all the Boeing 737 Max airships to prevent more of such fatal cases. The firm equally addressed this crisis by developing and testing software that updates the facility’s status in 207 flights (Tangel et al. 2019). It also created a new training program to help pilots understand how to fly the machine at different times. Similarly, Boeing announced that it would increase information sources and empower the pilot’s authority over the anti-stall system to secure the planes. Earlier on, the anti-stall system had reacted with flaws after receiving wrong information from a single sensor (Tangel et al. 2019). As a result, the company responded by increasing the number of sensors to allow the system to act on multi-sector information. Experts had advised that having multiple data sources would allow the system to analyze, detect, and respond qualitatively to situations.
Studies have shown that Jack Wight’s five steps of crisis management could help address corporate crises effectively. According to Welch (2016), Boeing’s executives needed to accept that its airship had depicted real flaws that ended numerous lives. Although one could perceive otherwise, this approach could help mitigate the impact of late evidence (Welch 2016). Secondly, the company executives needed to share all the information on the crises with multi-team investigators to clear out the air and prevent future leaks. Here, managers needed to understand that the world has no secrets, and concealing information could only stimulate public access because it concerned people’s lives (Welch 2016). Boeing’s management also had to preserve its name from crisis-related factors because some of its stakeholders were likely to blame it for the crisis.
Also, Boeing assumed to have developed significant changes in its operations to curb the hazard’s reoccurrence. The company isolated the general causes of the crisis, such as system failure or flawed employees, and ethical or unethical activities to develop a universal preventive strategy against future accidents (Welch 2016). These changes included empowering the pilot over the MCAS system, providing computer training on anti-install system operation, and increasing the number of sensors that feed information in the anti-install order. The company publicly made these changes to show that it had identified the crisis’ cause and effectively managed it to safeguard its loyal and potential clients. Lastly, the firm assumed that it would emerge out of the crisis stronger (Welch 2016). Indeed, disasters allow businesses to restructure and create a more durable competitive advantage in their specific business lines. Finally, Boeing could have learned from this experience to develop quality crisis management strategies and prevent future aviation business issues.
Memo
TO: Boeing Engineers
FROM: The Chief Executive
DATE: 07/08/2020
SUBJECT: Management Strategies for the 737 Max Crisis
Nature of the Crisis
In recent months, our airships, particularly model 737 Max, have involved in severe accidents that claimed many lives. On March 10, 2019, one of our planes, attached to Ethiopian Airlines, crashed shortly after taking off and killed 157 passengers. It emerged that the airship’s computerized information differed from the co-pilot’s statistics. These data included airspeed, altitude, and other essential information that signals the pilot’s operations. The black box statistics indicated that the facility’s anti-install system, which often operates independently obtained flawed information from one sensor, the scenario that caused the crisis. In 2018, we witnessed another sister situation in Indonesia, where 189 passengers lost their lives. Although this period has adversely affected our company’s loyal clients and operations, we need to remain optimistic about the future.
Response on the Crisis
Various factors could clarify our response to this crisis. Firstly, we adhered to the Congress’ guideline by halting operations of all the Boeing model 737 Max. This decision aims to evaluate their status and to develop a suitable remedy to eliminate threats and ensure our esteemed consumers’ safety. The firm deployed a team of experts to work with the federal investigators to analyze the incident’s primary cause. After securing and analyzing the black box, it emerged that the anti-install system obtained flawed information from the sensor, thereby causing malfunctions in the craft operations. The anti-install system’s superiority made it difficult for the pilot to control it, thus causing the accident. Therefore, we have promised to collaborate with the investigation team by supplying them with all necessary crisis-related information to help solve this issue.
Crisis Management Steps
In adherence to scientific guidelines, we would manage this crisis through 5 steps. Firstly, the firm would develop a plan that brings onboard its wide range of our stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, consumers, and others. This evidence-backed and legal bound plan would get to the company’s stakeholders and financial managers to equip them with periodical updates on the case. Secondly, we would have a dedicated team to foresee and brainstorm the crisis’ state, its potential impact, and its remedy. The team would partner with training specialists to help prepare for the future address of similar challenges. Thirdly, the company would communicate issues of this crisis through its professional and informed crisis spokesperson. This centralization of information would ensure transparency and honesty to avoid misinformation. Fourthly the company would develop preventive strategies for future crises by increasing the pilot’s influence over the anti-install system and increase the number of sensors that feed the latter with information. Lastly, the company would examine the previous steps to correct the loopholes that could lead to another crisis. In conclusion, Boeing would emerge stronger from this crisis and attain a robust aviation industry position.
References
Kopanakis, John (2017). The five most crucial crisis management steps. Mentionlytics, December 5. https://www.mentionlytics.com/blog/the-5-most-crucial-crisis-management-steps/
Tangel Andrew, Pasztor Andy & Maremont Marck (2019). The four-second catastrophe: How Boeing Doomed the 737 Max. The Wall Street Journal, August 16. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-four-second-catastrophe-how-boeing-doomed-the-737-max-11565966629
Welch, Jack (2016). Five Assumptions you have to make when managing a crisis. Jack Welch, October 17. https://jackwelch.strayer.edu/winning/crisis-management-five-assumptions/