Originally Posted by
Jetsbest
Qantas management have done so much to deride, antagonise, be obtuse with using double standards & selective facts against most segments of their work-force. It doesn’t really surprise me that, in an unfortunate development like these pickle forks cracks, there has been a response “in kind”.
Regrettable? Sure. Is there a different/better way? Possibly.... but you reap what is sown. Engagement anyone?
The modern management suite is full of combative terms, aggressive tone and at the core is the management theory, pumped out by business schools that the only way to contain labour unit cost is aggressively.
When airlines, a very people dependent business and this style of management come together, it is axiomatic that the response will be delivered in kind.
October 2011 was designed to strike fear and doubt into employees, irrespective of the cost.
There are notable exceptions to this "model" .
“A company is stronger if it is bound by love rather than by fear.” – Herb Kelleher
That Little Napoleon is an active participant in an aggressive and adversarial management approach is no surprise.
Qantas had a real opportunity to change the way it engages its workforce, however the confluence of two defective characters (Clifford and Joyce) and an industrial landscape ripe for testing meant the relationship deteriorated even further.
Little Napoleon can surround himself with IR, flank himself with security and get whisked from the basement to home with security mapping his every move, but the fish rots from the head.