Qantas HR:-The Root of All Evil
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 5th Dimension
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas HR:-The Root of All Evil
Qantas' HR policy crashes to earth
Christopher J Tipler
Published 6:24 AM, 6 Oct 2011 Last update 6:24 AM, 6 Oct 2011
Christopher J Tipler
Published 6:24 AM, 6 Oct 2011 Last update 6:24 AM, 6 Oct 2011
It is painful to watch the very public disputes between Qantas and many of its staff. The company says it is committed to "engaging and developing our people", and the chairman states that "Qantas employees represent the Australian spirit at its finest". Yet the company does not seem to know how to forge a constructive relationship with its people.
So we are treated to an ugly and somewhat predictable set piece battle in which highly-paid executives seek to reduce labour costs, pilots abuse their position by soliciting public support from the cockpit and baggage handlers strike when the market is most sensitive. Same old, same old. It is unedifying, it is destroying shareholder value in the short term and there is no evidence that the conflict will lead to value creation in the long term.
For some years now, the global airline industry has been a crucible for human resources experiments as airlines tried different strategies to reduce costs in ferociously competitive markets. Lots of things have been tried: confrontation and pitched battles with unions, conflict resolution, outsourcing, flexible work rules, different staff selection methods, training for teamwork, supervisory coaching, partnering with unions, captains as leaders of the flight departure process, cross-functional accountabilities and so on.
These strategies have typically been combined to achieve both absolute cost reduction and productivity enhancement, with the former being commonly referred to as ‘low road’ and the latter as ‘high road’. With the lower cost structure of its Jetstar business in mind, Qantas seems to be focused mainly on low-road strategies to reduce pay rates and benefits.
Across the industry, there is little evidence to suggest that any of these strategies will produce durable outcomes unless they are part of a wide-reaching, enlightened plan to link the personal motivation of employees to desired commercial outcomes. Helping the company achieve this objective should be the mission statement of the Qantas human resources director and a central objective of the Qantas management team and board.
How can Qantas create a new relationship with its 31,000 staff, one that reflects engagement in common cause rather than traditional, adversarial, win-lose positions? This is a very big subject, but some of the required elements of a new, twenty-first century, model are outlined below.
Transparency of strategy
By its very nature, common cause requires the mission to be a shared one. This means that Qantas’ strategic and operational agenda must not only be clearly communicated to employees, it must be accepted by them as feasible and likely to result in their reasonable needs being met.
Sense of higher purpose
Twenty-first century HR models start with the premise that work should be a ‘pilgrimage of identity’ (to use a lovely expression coined by author David Whyte) rather than a necessary evil. If we want our people to express a firm persuasion in their work we must start with this idea and create a perennial conversation about how the workplace can enrich and enliven rather than enervate. The ideas that flow from this conversation then become core elements of the business model.
Going beyond ‘work-life balance’
The new HR models recognise that people cannot, and do not, park their needs at the door when they come to work and that the idea of work-life balance (where most needs are met outside the workplace) is primitive and outdated. For work to be a triumph of existence the workplace must provide the opportunity for individuals to satisfy many, if not most, of their deficit motivation and self-actualising needs.
This may sound esoteric but it is, in fact, intensely practical. If we want to release and utilise the energy of our people we must tap it at the wellspring of needs. When we do this, a new type of HR contract emerges where accountability for results is a natural outcome of the way the organisation works rather than a forced outcome.
Satisfying deficit motivation needs is about meeting, in many different ways, the need for safety and security, belonging and esteem. Meeting higher needs such as the need for truth, beauty, aliveness, wholeness, and meaning has not been a traditional focus for most businesses but is becoming a source of real advantage for leading companies.
Choosing attitudes
The new HR models understand how important attitude is. Attitude creates disposition; disposition creates behaviour and behaviour drives outcomes. Attitude is a choice and good choices can be taught, cultivated and re-enforced. This starts at the top and it is very infectious. When we choose our attitude (as opposed to simply falling into an attitude based on habit), the common result is productivity, playfulness, service and care.
Having honest conversations
When we are transparent, reasonable, and honest the organisation can develop relationships based on trust. When trust is established, it is possible to have the courageous conversations that are so necessary to a vibrant, successful community.
Creating a high quality workplace
The workplace has both classical and romantic dimensions. The former is critically important to order, control and efficiency. The latter shapes creativity. A workplace that is rich in classic quality is a best-practice one that makes good use of information and has a sound strategy, is rigorous in the way that it makes decisions, respects the good traditions of the business, has good quality assets, and is technically proficient.
A workplace that is rich in romantic quality seeks to have a dialogue with its unknown future, is willing to experiment, welcomes behaviour that moves it closer to its ‘cutting edge’, and demonstrates a love of design and beauty in the physical working environment.
If it is to be successful, Qantas needs a renaissance in its understanding of, and approach to, its workforce of 31,000 souls; a renaissance that breaks from the old twentieth century mindset that is characterising current behaviour. That renaissance needs to start now and be driven from the top. It must start with a clear and comprehensive picture of the nature of the new relationship Qantas will have with its staff and of the barriers to achieving it.
Christopher Tipler is a Melbourne-based management advisor and author of Corpus RIOS – The how and what of business strategy. His web site corpusrios.com contains more material on this and related topics.
So we are treated to an ugly and somewhat predictable set piece battle in which highly-paid executives seek to reduce labour costs, pilots abuse their position by soliciting public support from the cockpit and baggage handlers strike when the market is most sensitive. Same old, same old. It is unedifying, it is destroying shareholder value in the short term and there is no evidence that the conflict will lead to value creation in the long term.
For some years now, the global airline industry has been a crucible for human resources experiments as airlines tried different strategies to reduce costs in ferociously competitive markets. Lots of things have been tried: confrontation and pitched battles with unions, conflict resolution, outsourcing, flexible work rules, different staff selection methods, training for teamwork, supervisory coaching, partnering with unions, captains as leaders of the flight departure process, cross-functional accountabilities and so on.
These strategies have typically been combined to achieve both absolute cost reduction and productivity enhancement, with the former being commonly referred to as ‘low road’ and the latter as ‘high road’. With the lower cost structure of its Jetstar business in mind, Qantas seems to be focused mainly on low-road strategies to reduce pay rates and benefits.
Across the industry, there is little evidence to suggest that any of these strategies will produce durable outcomes unless they are part of a wide-reaching, enlightened plan to link the personal motivation of employees to desired commercial outcomes. Helping the company achieve this objective should be the mission statement of the Qantas human resources director and a central objective of the Qantas management team and board.
How can Qantas create a new relationship with its 31,000 staff, one that reflects engagement in common cause rather than traditional, adversarial, win-lose positions? This is a very big subject, but some of the required elements of a new, twenty-first century, model are outlined below.
Transparency of strategy
By its very nature, common cause requires the mission to be a shared one. This means that Qantas’ strategic and operational agenda must not only be clearly communicated to employees, it must be accepted by them as feasible and likely to result in their reasonable needs being met.
Sense of higher purpose
Twenty-first century HR models start with the premise that work should be a ‘pilgrimage of identity’ (to use a lovely expression coined by author David Whyte) rather than a necessary evil. If we want our people to express a firm persuasion in their work we must start with this idea and create a perennial conversation about how the workplace can enrich and enliven rather than enervate. The ideas that flow from this conversation then become core elements of the business model.
Going beyond ‘work-life balance’
The new HR models recognise that people cannot, and do not, park their needs at the door when they come to work and that the idea of work-life balance (where most needs are met outside the workplace) is primitive and outdated. For work to be a triumph of existence the workplace must provide the opportunity for individuals to satisfy many, if not most, of their deficit motivation and self-actualising needs.
This may sound esoteric but it is, in fact, intensely practical. If we want to release and utilise the energy of our people we must tap it at the wellspring of needs. When we do this, a new type of HR contract emerges where accountability for results is a natural outcome of the way the organisation works rather than a forced outcome.
Satisfying deficit motivation needs is about meeting, in many different ways, the need for safety and security, belonging and esteem. Meeting higher needs such as the need for truth, beauty, aliveness, wholeness, and meaning has not been a traditional focus for most businesses but is becoming a source of real advantage for leading companies.
Choosing attitudes
The new HR models understand how important attitude is. Attitude creates disposition; disposition creates behaviour and behaviour drives outcomes. Attitude is a choice and good choices can be taught, cultivated and re-enforced. This starts at the top and it is very infectious. When we choose our attitude (as opposed to simply falling into an attitude based on habit), the common result is productivity, playfulness, service and care.
Having honest conversations
When we are transparent, reasonable, and honest the organisation can develop relationships based on trust. When trust is established, it is possible to have the courageous conversations that are so necessary to a vibrant, successful community.
Creating a high quality workplace
The workplace has both classical and romantic dimensions. The former is critically important to order, control and efficiency. The latter shapes creativity. A workplace that is rich in classic quality is a best-practice one that makes good use of information and has a sound strategy, is rigorous in the way that it makes decisions, respects the good traditions of the business, has good quality assets, and is technically proficient.
A workplace that is rich in romantic quality seeks to have a dialogue with its unknown future, is willing to experiment, welcomes behaviour that moves it closer to its ‘cutting edge’, and demonstrates a love of design and beauty in the physical working environment.
If it is to be successful, Qantas needs a renaissance in its understanding of, and approach to, its workforce of 31,000 souls; a renaissance that breaks from the old twentieth century mindset that is characterising current behaviour. That renaissance needs to start now and be driven from the top. It must start with a clear and comprehensive picture of the nature of the new relationship Qantas will have with its staff and of the barriers to achieving it.
Christopher Tipler is a Melbourne-based management advisor and author of Corpus RIOS – The how and what of business strategy. His web site corpusrios.com contains more material on this and related topics.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Blue Lagoon
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disappointment
Qantas' strategies are not those of a harmonious engaged business. For a company that recently announced over $500 million in profit to use a lobbyist as its spokesperson on industrial disputes defies logic. Is this the new spirit?
As a shareholder, I hope not. Announced strategies include $500m overseas investment, new aircraft and new destinations. So I may ask: Does Qantas currently have the wrong aircraft and they fly to the wrong destinations? Share price 2008 approx $5, 2011 approx $1.50. CEO remuneration is up 70 per cent. Chairman remuneration is up 30 per cent in the same time. Media spokesperson remuneration over $1 million. Current industrial disputes with pilots, engineers, cabin presentation, catering, transport, freight, ground staff and baggage handlers. Honesty seems to be lost in the transparency of the Qantas strategy. Qantas has the high quality workforce that is now off balance. Perhaps a change in attitude from the top will provide meaningful decisions that do more than increase their own remuneration.
As a shareholder, I hope not. Announced strategies include $500m overseas investment, new aircraft and new destinations. So I may ask: Does Qantas currently have the wrong aircraft and they fly to the wrong destinations? Share price 2008 approx $5, 2011 approx $1.50. CEO remuneration is up 70 per cent. Chairman remuneration is up 30 per cent in the same time. Media spokesperson remuneration over $1 million. Current industrial disputes with pilots, engineers, cabin presentation, catering, transport, freight, ground staff and baggage handlers. Honesty seems to be lost in the transparency of the Qantas strategy. Qantas has the high quality workforce that is now off balance. Perhaps a change in attitude from the top will provide meaningful decisions that do more than increase their own remuneration.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Qantas' strategies are not those of a harmonious engaged business.
. History lessons are possibly there in the past I suppose if anyone dares to do the homework. Sunfish ?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all sounds very airy fairy. The message being spruiked here only applies to 30% of the employees. Read into that the higher paid/higher educated staff. The remaining 70% who do all the "menial" tasks that keep the organisation running just want the basics. Job security, good pay and good benefits.Most don't expect to be millionaires by working at Qantas, but they expect to work for a well run, respected organisation that pays them well (above industry average), that values the employee by giving them the security in the knowledge that their jobs are not under constant threat.
What those who run HR & IR don't seem to realise is that by constantly poking the staff with the big stick and by crying wolf over the last 10 years, they have brought about a reaction of their own doing.
What those who run HR & IR don't seem to realise is that by constantly poking the staff with the big stick and by crying wolf over the last 10 years, they have brought about a reaction of their own doing.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
HR is the old personnel dept of 30 or 40 yrs ago for those that old. IR became a monster since then.
Fishers ghost thanks for the article. Good stuff.
Fishers ghost thanks for the article. Good stuff.
QANTAS HR has made Two decisions about employing people that I have found bizarre. One was pilot group and one was management.
I know both of their backgrounds and the decision by Qantas to employ was "Perverse" in my opinion.
...And no. i won't say why they are "perverse" because it is possible they could be identified, and I don't wish to see them hurt.
I know both of their backgrounds and the decision by Qantas to employ was "Perverse" in my opinion.
...And no. i won't say why they are "perverse" because it is possible they could be identified, and I don't wish to see them hurt.
Chrisopher Tipler doesn't really understand the situation at all. The problem is the system. 3/4 of the problems mentioned in his piece QANTAS already had; then because of short term incentives paid to managers through KPI's the managers were paid very well to actually destroy their own business. Given that most managers were not around for the long haul they got everything they could out of their position and slowly but surely dismantled the airline. You could start with the engine shop and the high amount of engine failures that followed in the wake of its closure.
So how on earth can QF management share a vision that requires staff to resign from their position or be made redundant, and/or then move to an Asian country and live as an expat on lower pay and conditions without all the benefits that citizenship provide and the protection of Australian rules and regulations? How is that a vision that can be shared? If you wanted live in Singapore you would apply to Singapore Airlines.
If you want to save QF you need to abolish the pay structure. Pay managers to manage and not to destroy the business. Abolish KPI's and bonuses completely, even if it meant increasing salaries. This way it will remove the incentives to slash and burn. Intrinsically motivate the staff. QF already had this and management have destroyed it.
By its very nature, common cause requires the mission to be a shared one. This means that Qantas’ strategic and operational agenda must not only be clearly communicated to employees, it must be accepted by them as feasible and likely to result in their reasonable needs being met.
If you want to save QF you need to abolish the pay structure. Pay managers to manage and not to destroy the business. Abolish KPI's and bonuses completely, even if it meant increasing salaries. This way it will remove the incentives to slash and burn. Intrinsically motivate the staff. QF already had this and management have destroyed it.
'Human Resources' is an Americanism that spread from MBA types and universities. It is basically a dehumanising term which equates people to computers, office furniture and machinery. Once you define people as a commodity it is easier for Boardrooms to treat them as such. Sort of stuff bean counters love as they punch away at their calculators. HR people are learned and practiced in the art of manipulating employees towards Company ends. Propoganda is part of their toolbox of tricks. You may know that a company is becoming more 'people oriented' when they denounce these practices and move back towards 'Staff' departments.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an expert in stategic management he seems to have missed the first step - an analysis of the macro and micro external enviroment. If he had of done that, he would have realised that Qantas are in a fight for their survival.
The macro environment - ie the post GFC world with shaky growth and low confidence coupled with the airline specific micro (industry) environment - open skies, high competition, competitors with significant cost advantages and a reduction in revenue per ASK year on year. Follow that sort of analyis up with a detailed view using something like Porters 5 Forces model (not sure if this is MBA stuff Flyingfox but it is certainly academic) and you would take a dim view of Qantas Internationals prospects.
What we are talking about here is survival make no bones about it. I know you don't like it and neither do I but little old Qantas isn't the protected species it once was, it competes at a corporate level for capital against all industries and competes against tough airline competitors with major locational and structural advantages.
Historically, Qantas has used its safety and brand image as its competitive advantage. The safety side is gone, other airlines appear to be operating well. Customers are voting with their wallets and therefore Qantas must compete on cost and service. The competitors costs are lower - we all know that. How do you increase service without increasing the cost again - tricky isn't it?
The macro environment - ie the post GFC world with shaky growth and low confidence coupled with the airline specific micro (industry) environment - open skies, high competition, competitors with significant cost advantages and a reduction in revenue per ASK year on year. Follow that sort of analyis up with a detailed view using something like Porters 5 Forces model (not sure if this is MBA stuff Flyingfox but it is certainly academic) and you would take a dim view of Qantas Internationals prospects.
What we are talking about here is survival make no bones about it. I know you don't like it and neither do I but little old Qantas isn't the protected species it once was, it competes at a corporate level for capital against all industries and competes against tough airline competitors with major locational and structural advantages.
Historically, Qantas has used its safety and brand image as its competitive advantage. The safety side is gone, other airlines appear to be operating well. Customers are voting with their wallets and therefore Qantas must compete on cost and service. The competitors costs are lower - we all know that. How do you increase service without increasing the cost again - tricky isn't it?
The trouble BP, is that Qantas is not competing at all on service. It is competing purely on cost and has been trimming its service levels to trim costs, not trying to maintain a constant service level while trimming costs.
There is ample evidence on Pprune and other forums that Qantas is delivering tired, low quality product and doing it with an increasingly frustrated and disillusioned staff who want to do better but are hampered by a lack of resources.
The problem with the entire Qantas management and Board is that they think they make a difference. The reality is that front line Cabin crew and customer service folk can make an instant and lasting impression on customers each and every hour of their working day, and that can and does either turn off customers forever or win repeat business.
Similarly with pilots; do they make the extra effort to try a different level with slightly better winds to save half a ton of fuel or do they sit back and drink their coffee for another Ten minutes?
Same with engineers. They are fixing X, they notice Y will be in need of replacement shortly. Do they fix it?
The Board gets to make one call that really matters perhaps every Five years, the employees make much more immediate and critical decisions from a company revenue perspective every day. Those Five year calls haven't been wildly successful either (no B777).
To put that another way, employees can make much more trouble for management and shareholders than managers can make for employees. It is unwise to forget where the power to perform really lies, as apparently Qantas has done.
To put that another way, if you think your product can be delivered by low paid monkeys, you are in for a shock. You should ask my Son what he thinks of Cathay Pacific cabin crew for example.
There is ample evidence on Pprune and other forums that Qantas is delivering tired, low quality product and doing it with an increasingly frustrated and disillusioned staff who want to do better but are hampered by a lack of resources.
The problem with the entire Qantas management and Board is that they think they make a difference. The reality is that front line Cabin crew and customer service folk can make an instant and lasting impression on customers each and every hour of their working day, and that can and does either turn off customers forever or win repeat business.
Similarly with pilots; do they make the extra effort to try a different level with slightly better winds to save half a ton of fuel or do they sit back and drink their coffee for another Ten minutes?
Same with engineers. They are fixing X, they notice Y will be in need of replacement shortly. Do they fix it?
The Board gets to make one call that really matters perhaps every Five years, the employees make much more immediate and critical decisions from a company revenue perspective every day. Those Five year calls haven't been wildly successful either (no B777).
To put that another way, employees can make much more trouble for management and shareholders than managers can make for employees. It is unwise to forget where the power to perform really lies, as apparently Qantas has done.
To put that another way, if you think your product can be delivered by low paid monkeys, you are in for a shock. You should ask my Son what he thinks of Cathay Pacific cabin crew for example.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What we are talking about here is survival make no bones about it. I know you don't like it and neither do I but little old Qantas isn't the protected species it once was, it competes at a corporate level for capital against all industries and competes against tough airline competitors with major locational and structural advantages.
a) NOT a Qantas employee, therefore have no idea what is going on inside the fence OR
b) a manager, therefore you believe the sh!t you're fed from on high and can't spare a second to remove your snout from the stinking trough to see how things REALLY are.
The MAJOR advantages our competitors have are in the boardroom and in Bullsh!t Towers. A perusal of these threads will a) enlighten an outsider or b) remind a KPI-fattened member of an incompetent, co-opted and hopelessly out-of-depth management team with outmoded 20th century IR ideas of the NUMEROUS poor business decisions that have been made at board, executive and middle management levels, DESPITE the best advice of the people on the front line.
No 777's; freight cartel fines; incorrectly configured A330's; giving away ground handling contracts; poor route and timing decisions; poor IFE decisions; outsourcing logistics chain to incompetents; outsourcing engine work to "Centres of Excellence" when QF engine lines were ALREADY centres of excellence recognised by the engine manufacturers - only to receive engines in return that don't last as long on-wing, can't meet EGT margins and fire-wires routed incorrectly. Need I go on? Because I can.
Further, HR and Finance are the two empires that are cannibalising this company - never mind bloody Jet*. If Jet* is a leech on QF International, HR is the cancer that is destroying morale and Finance is the fox in charge of the hen-house.
Rant bloody-well over!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and a bloody good rant as well NM
Qantas changed from Personnel to Qantas HR in the mid 1990's.
Engagement & TQM (Total Quality Management) were the "buzz words".
Now HR has been replaced by.......wait for it .....:
PEOPLE & CULTURE
Are you kidding me? What the hell does this mean?
1. I was never treated as a "People "in my last 12 years.
2. Culture......what has that got do do with HR....I thought it has more to do with identifying individual differences by country of origin.
The dark daze of HR festered under the "reign of terror " GD years with KB as "chief commandant". FEAR, INTIMIDATION & BULLYING became the norm. Staff became more and more DIS- engaged from Management BUT surprisingly not from the brand. Brand loyalty still exists in spades at Qantas.
They just want this "Management Team" gone-skees.
Look across the pond and see what Rob Fyfe is doing with Air NZ. Sure they have their issues and not all staff are happy little vegemites (hokey pokies)
But strewth.... if the kiwi's can pull the necessary "People" levers -why the hell can't we.
Qantas changed from Personnel to Qantas HR in the mid 1990's.
Engagement & TQM (Total Quality Management) were the "buzz words".
Now HR has been replaced by.......wait for it .....:
PEOPLE & CULTURE
Are you kidding me? What the hell does this mean?
1. I was never treated as a "People "in my last 12 years.
2. Culture......what has that got do do with HR....I thought it has more to do with identifying individual differences by country of origin.
The dark daze of HR festered under the "reign of terror " GD years with KB as "chief commandant". FEAR, INTIMIDATION & BULLYING became the norm. Staff became more and more DIS- engaged from Management BUT surprisingly not from the brand. Brand loyalty still exists in spades at Qantas.
They just want this "Management Team" gone-skees.
Look across the pond and see what Rob Fyfe is doing with Air NZ. Sure they have their issues and not all staff are happy little vegemites (hokey pokies)
But strewth.... if the kiwi's can pull the necessary "People" levers -why the hell can't we.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to work for a mid sized IT corporate in the UK that espoused the 'HR is great' attitude in the 1990s.
By 2008, following in the wake of chinese competition (whose workers were there for money, not personal enrichment, blah, blah, blah), the person who handed the keys to the building's managing agent was the then redundant HR director. She had to sign her own death warrant.
She's currently doing the same thing with another UK corporate.
Cold comfort, but made us all grin.
By 2008, following in the wake of chinese competition (whose workers were there for money, not personal enrichment, blah, blah, blah), the person who handed the keys to the building's managing agent was the then redundant HR director. She had to sign her own death warrant.
She's currently doing the same thing with another UK corporate.
Cold comfort, but made us all grin.