An analysis of the contrasting HRM policies of BA and Ryan Air through 4 frames - Structural, HR,Political and Symbolic and commenting on the alignment of the HRM policies to the strategic objectives of each company

1. Word Count:

2. Table of Contents
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3. Table of Figures
Figure 1: Impact of HR on Business strategy (Group.1, 2012) _______________________________________ 5
Figure 2: Organisations from a frame perspective ________________________________________________ 6
Figure 3: Alignment of HR polices to the Business plan (Group.1, 2012) _______________________________ 6
Figure 4: Timelines of BA and RA (Group.1, 2012) ________________________________________________ 7
Figure 5: Organisational Trade offs (Group.1, 2012) ______________________________________________ 8
Figure 6: Employee/Passenger Ratio (Group.1, 2012) _____________________________________________ 9
Figure 7: BA’s Divisionalised Bureaucracy ______________________________________________________ 10
Figure 8: Ryanairs Structure adapted from Mintzberg (Bolman and Deal, 2008) _______________________ 10
Figure 9: Comparison of HR between BA and Ryanair (Group.1, 2012) _______________________________ 12
Figure 10: Driving Factors of Employee Satisfaction ______________________________________________ 14
Figure 11: Mckinsey “War for talent” _________________________________________________________ 14
Figure 12: Mckinsey; Non-financial and financial incentives. _______________________________________ 15
Figure 13: Power Controlling Conflicts and Interest ______________________________________________ 17
Figure 14: BA's Vision and Strategy ___________________________________________________________ 19
Figure 15: BA's returning coat of arms (British Airways, 2012) _____________________________________ 20
Figure 16: Crew-member at the wings ceremony ________________________________________________ 21
Figure 17: Power Culture (Harrison, 1993) _____________________________________________________ 22
Figure 18: Role Culture (Harrison, 1993) ______________________________________________________ 22
Figure 19: (Slocum and Hellriegel, 2006) _______________________________________________________ 23
Figure 20: Scheins levels of Organisational culture (Schein, 2010) adapted by (Group.1, 2012) ____________ 24
Figure 21: Leadership and the Other Frames ___________________________________________________ 26
Figure 22: BA Leadership Interaction (Group 1, 2012) ____________________________________________ 26
Figure 23: Situational Leadership for British Airways _____________________________________________ 27
Figure 24: RA Leadership Interaction (Group.1, 2012) ____________________________________________ 27
Figure 25: Situational Leadership for British Airways _____________________________________________ 28
Figure 26: Group 1 Structure Pre rationalisation adapted from Mintzberg (Bolman and Deal, 2008) _______ 30
Figure 27: All channel network, (Bolman and Deal, 2008). _________________________________________ 30

4. Executive Summary
“Management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of
organization” – Sun Tzu, Art of War
The following report is on Managing People in Organizations and analysis the different
frames used in organizations. The report studies the four frames in its depth and analysis
the pros and cons of all the four frames – structural, Human Resource, Political and
Symbolic.
To get a deeper understanding of the frames they have been studied through two different
companies in the airline sector. British Airways which is one of the biggest airline company
in Europe and Ryan Air, the largest low cost airline in Europe.
The report studies the different perspectives of the four frames in both the companies and
the presence or lack of them in either. The initial research is on the current status of the four
frames in both the companies and this is done through primary research and research
papers on both the companies. The research does analyses of the frames and evolution of
them in the past and compares the same between both the companies.
After the understanding of the influence of the frames in the companies, the report
concludes the current status.
The report goes on to highlight the apparent short comings of the current status of the four
frames in both the companies and brings out the possible areas of improvement. A list of
recommendations is chalked out in the section for each frame and each company. The
recommendations while not being exhaustive and the most politically correct, is based on
the current scenario, company objectives and the potential threat perceived from the current
status.
Finally, the report gives a detailed action plan for the suggested recommendations in the
research and the possible methods of implementations of the same. While both the
companies are pioneers in their own segments and have multiple actions being taken to
strengthen their current position, these recommendations and the suggested action plans
are pertinent to the organizational structure and Human Resource development.

5. 1 Acknowledgements
The group would like to thank the following people who provided insight and information of
British Airways and Ryanair from a HR and MPIO perspective. Michelle Moseley and Paul
Asquith offered a BA view, Michelle from a Cabin Crew Members opinion and Paul from a
managerial interpretation. Ema Kalan offered insight of Ryanair and what it is like to be
employed by them. We hope we have interpreted this information correctly and our
recommendations will be beneficial to the company.

6. 2 Introduction
The Airlines industry is one that has witnessed tremendous changes over the past 15 years.
Events such as the oil crisis, deregulation, terrorist attacks and the resultant more stringent
security checks, industrial actions, the outbreak of the SARS, volcanic eruption, all
contributed to a more challenging operating environment. (CAA, 2011). While some of the
airlines faded into oblivion, others have adopted strategies such as mergers, acquisitions
and rebranding in order to survive. The following report analyses two of the trend setters in
the UK airline industry - British Airways and Ryanair and how their human resources policies
align with their respective strategies and their effectiveness in delivering the strategic
objectives.
British Airways are a subsidiary of International Consolidated Airlines Group SA (IAG) have
been the one of the world‟s longest lasting premium airlines company. The company
celebrated its 90th anniversary on 25 August 2009 and has most recently (2011) re adapted
its motto of “Fly to serve” thus reaffirming its commitment to customer service.
Ryanair claims to be the „World‟s favourite airline‟ operating more than 1,400 flights per day
from 44 bases and 1100+ low fare routes across 27 countries, connecting 160 destinations
(Ryanair) . The company created the Europe‟s largest booking website-www.ryanair.com in
2000 in order to manage its increasing passenger traffic and sustain its low cost, high profit
model of business.
The importance of the HR policies of the two companies can be seen from the way they
bring deliver the points of difference of each of the companies.
Figure 1: Impact of HR on Business strategy (Group.1, 2012)
This report analyses the human resource policies of the two companies from the point of
view of 4 frames: Structural, Symbolic, Human Resources and Political and brings out the
contrasting differences among the companies. Further, the leadership and motivation
models of the companies are analysed critically with their relevance to their strategic
objectives.

7. Figure 2: Organisations from a frame perspective
Some suggestions are proposed to improve the alignment of the policies from the point of
view of each frame and a roadmap is built to implement these suggestions.
Figure 3: Alignment of HR polices to the Business plan (Group.1, 2012)

8. 3 Frames
3.1 Structural frame
The following chapter discusses the various HR policies of British Airways and Ryanair from
a structural point of view and analyses the alignment with their respective strategies.
While one analyses the structural framework of an organization, it has to be realized that
organizational structures are changing periodically and what is evaluated is a snapshot of
the result of key strategic decisions taken in the past. In each of these decisions, a trade-off
has to be made among a number of criteria and some of them are highlighted here.
In order to analyse the current HR policies of BA and Ryanair from the structural framework,
the diagram below shows the evolution of the companies is the past 15 years in various
aspects.
Figure 4: Timelines of BA and RA (Group.1, 2012)
From the above diagram, it can be seen that while Ryanair has had a consistent leader over
the years, with a well-defined strategic vision, it has been dynamic in its practise of
leveraging technology to assist in driving down costs. The autocratic system of Ryanair
helps the company be agile in changing its structure quickly that assists in its rapid
expansion plans.

9. On the other hand, British Airways has reframed its strategies over the years to keep
abreast with the changing needs of the customer and this aligns to their motto of offering
impeccable customer service. The organization has been proactive in the utilization of
technology to support this vision which can be seen from their resent adoption of I pads for
customer service personnel to handle their CRM better.
Polarized Tradeoffs of British Airways and Ryanair.
Since the strategic objectives of British Airways and Ryanair are polarized in nature, the two
companies have adopted policies where the advantages of one company is the trade-off that
the other has taken in order to make its strategy work. This can be seen from the below
table that compares the organization structure of both companies.
Figure 5: Organisational Trade offs (Group.1, 2012)
With its Low-cost and efficiency driven strategy, the Ryanair has higher passenger per
employee ratio. This results in overload of work, less time for innovation and often
unresponsive to customer‟s requirements except those that contribute to increasing profits.
At the same time, Ryan Air benefits from a highly efficient staff, who are goalbound and
committed, with policies that define flexible roles for employees to multitask and earn more.

10. For example,
(Air Scoop, 2011)
British Airways, with its motto of “Fly to Serve” has a lower passenger per employee ratio.
The elaborate nature of its policies often creates overlap of responsibilities and room for
innovation and creativity. The high degree of team building is prevalent, an example of which
is seen how the BA way is promoted in the organization as already mentioned in the cultural
section of this document.
The drive for reducing costs and increasing the overall revenue of the company is clearly
seen from the policy of maintain a much higher passenger per employee ratio. Also the
practise of charging heavily for services rendered helps Ryanair to set new standards in
lowering the customer‟s dependency on staff as well as increasing revenue through these
charges.
Figure 6: Employee/Passenger Ratio (Group.1, 2012)
Organizational Structure:
As complexity grows, organizations need more sophisticated and more costly
coordination strategies (Bolman and Deal, 2008)
The organizational structure of British Airways can be represented in the Mintzberg diagram
as below.

11. Figure 7: BA’s Divisionalised Bureaucracy
It can be observed that BA is a Bureaucratic organization with a number of different levels
and designations spread between the top management and lower rungs of the organization.
Each of the various levels of the management has specific roles and responsibilities which
are formed with the end objective of enhancing the customer experience. This can be seen
from the consistent manner in which they maintain their passenger per employee ratio.
Though the revenue of BA is reduced by the more number of employees, it aligns with their
vision of doing things the BA way (British Airways, 2011).
(Child & McGrath, 2001)
On the other hand, Ryanair is more an autocratic organization with a thinner structure as can
be Mitzberg diagram as shown below.
Figure 8: Ryanairs Structure adapted from Mintzberg (Bolman and Deal, 2008)
Organization within Airplanes:
It is natural that the organization within the airplane varies slightly in comparison to the rest
of the organization. This is due to the need for decision makers to be a part of each airplane
in order to take actions to ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

12. In the case of British Airways, the focus on customer service requires the adaption of various
teams of staff on the crew. Also the distribution is influenced by the different classes of
tickets and the variances in level of customer services expected. Through this differentiation
of roles and responsibilities, BA offers attention to detail, time for each customer and work
satisfaction for employees and scores highly on the soft HR practises.
On the other hand, the employees of Ryan Air are driven by hard HR practises. For
instance, the airline staffs are measured on sales targets and are paid only when on air (Air
Scoop, 2011). This ensures a quick turnaround time and higher efficiency of resources.
Policies outside the Airplanes:
The strategy of British Airways is to enhance the customer service at all touch points
whereas for Ryan Air touch points with customers are opportunities to increase the revenue
of the company. This reflects in the elaborate facilities offered by British Airways all over the
organization that help customer experience. For instance, BA trained their cleaning staff in
airports skills to render the basic directions to various terminals for customers who had
difficulty in finding them. This contrasts a great deal with Ryan Air that charges 40 pounds
fine for overweight luggage and offers 50pence reward for the employees who find them.
Another key issue to note in the case of Ryan Air is the risk of security of flights as the quick
turnaround time of 20 minutes limits the attention to details of maintenance policies.
In conclusion.
Over the years, British Airways and Ryanair have adopted HR policies that are quite
orthogonal to each other and yet align to the strategies of the respective companies. Ryanair
benefits from the hard nature of its HR policies and hence enjoys a cheaper and quick
process to evaluate their strategy. Also the structural changes in Ryanair happen in a quick
and cost effective manner.
Since the results of the strategies in British Airways are soft and indicative by nature, it
would take a longer and costly process to evaluate the strategy. This also results in a high
competitive inertia (Miller & Chen, 1994) with slower response to change which according to
one of its employees is “analogous to steering the titanic” (Group.1, 2012).
3.1.1 Recommendations
From a structural point of view, the following recommendations would help BA and Ryanair
in aligning their HR policies with their strategy.
British Airways:
1. Removal of layers of hierarchy in order to enable structural changes to serve the
customer better.
2. Improved definition of roles and responsibility in order to reduce confusion between
roles
3. Empowerment of employees to be flexible to serve the customer
Ryanair:
1. Focus on a succession plan to reduce dependency on Michael O‟leary.

13. 3.2 Human resources frame
The Human Resource frame takes the welfare of its human resource as the primary mode of
improving the productivity and the fortunes of a company. The human Resource frame
works on the concept that organizations are formed to cater to the needs of the people and
they both need each other with the same degree of interdependence. A misfit between both
can cause suffering for both, whereas a good match can result in a great working
environment for the employee and a loyal and productive talent pool for the Organization.
David Owen, an 18th century mercantile was one of the earliest proponents of the HR frame.
Owning spinning mills across Scotland, he started providing his workers a good standard of
living including housing and education, especially to the children by abolishing child labour.
(Bolman and Deal, 2008)
While it can be argued that companies with higher customer service as a thumb rule have a
better employee management policy, It is not as common for companies to see a connect
between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Research has shown a correlation
between the satisfactions of employee to profitability.
However the two companies chosen for the research have two distinct perspectives despite
being in a customer service industry. The graph below gives the shortest and clearest
snapshot of the different perspective of the human resource frame employed by the two
largest service companies in Europe.
Figure 9: Comparison of HR between BA and Ryanair (Group.1, 2012)

14. “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory; Tactics without strategy is
the noise before defeat” – Sun Tzu, Art of War.
While it looks quite apparent that British Airways has a frame with Human Resource at its
centre whereas Ryan air seems to be one of the most unfriendly places to work, it is
important to first understand the reason for the distinct outlooks. Like all profitable
companies the execution is driven by the strategy and before passing judgments on the
execution, it is imperative to perceive the same in context to their overall strategy.
British Airways
As mentioned earlier in the report, British Airways,
though changing its strategy frequently, has a clear
strategy of being the “To be the most admired airline
across the world‟s key cities.” (British Airways,
2011).Historically British Airways has focused on
providing the best customer experience and it is an
objective which is impossible to achieve without
having a trained employee bench and company culture. To ensure the same is achieved BA
has taken multiple initiatives in the HR framework like,
 360 degree feedback on all managers. As per British Airways “Authentic Leaders
understand and accept who they are and are able to recognize and manage their best
and worst qualities”. This ensures a free flow of feedback both top down and bottom up.
 Recruitment process aligned with the cultural and strategic requirement of the company
(British Airways)
 Training and development of its employees. “British Airways is all about bringing people
together, and taking them wherever they want to go. This applies as much to our
employees as the 36 million people who travel with us every year. For its only when they
realize their full potential that we can achieve our broader business goals” (British
Airways)
 Completely formal appraisal and promotion system with multiple panels and process for
both.
Ryan Air
“The deal at Ryan air is simple: We reward you well for effort.
Where possible, we incentivize your work so the more you do the
more you get paid. We aim to offer competitive salaries with
excellent benefits that are simple and easy to understand. We
offer an excellent share option scheme, which ultimately allows
you to own a piece of the airline and share in its success”
(Ryanair)
The quote in the career section portrays the Ryan Air‟s attitude
towards their human resource but the challenge is to view the same in the light of their
overall strategy. Some of their key HR policies are,

15.  Majority of the employees recruited and on the payrolls of external agencies, thus
reducing their costs of manpower.
 Trainings and development done through the agencies and paid by the employee.
 Compensation directly related to the hours spent in the flight rather than a fixed daily
working schedule.
It‟s quite apparent from the current human resource frame that both the organizations are
quite extreme and polar in both their policy and execution of the same. Both while having
their own challenges like friction with unions for BA and lack of loyalty and commitment for
Ryan Air; seem quite successful in their goal towards achieving their corporate objectives.
However, various researches over the period have highlighted the importance of the human
capital in an organization to have a long term vision and the contribution of this capital for
achieving the same.
A research by McKinsey done in 2001 showed the importance of having a stable and
motivated employee in the long term productivity of a company. (McKinsey& Company,
2001)
Figure 10: Driving Factors of Employee Satisfaction
Over the decades companies have realized the importance of
having a trained, loyal and motivated employee base. One of
the biggest shifts over this period has been the mention of
employees as a tool for operations to seeing them as a capital.
This shift has also changed the way the companies deal and
treat their employees internally
As per McKinsey there is a war for good talent and any human
resource driven company would require five elements for a
successful talent formula (Mckinsey, 2001)
Figure 11: Mckinsey “War
for talent”

16. 3.2.1 Recommendations
Recommendations
As both the companies are so different in their approach, the recommendations are bound to
be quite different. It is also important to highlight that the recommendations are also keeping
in mind the corporate strategy.
British Airways
The biggest challenge with BA has been its relations with the unions and the problems it
faces when difficult decisions are taken. While with its history it is not possible to wish away
the unions, it is extremely important that they can work on a strategy to create a sense of
loyalty to the company. As per Fred Reichheld in his book The Loyalty Effect, “loyalty is the
willingness to make an investment or personal sacrifice to strengthen a relationship”.
Discussions with the employees before making a strategy and discussing the pros and cons
about each strategy will ensure better by in and will help in reducing the number of industrial
actions seen quite recently. This will also ensure the employees owning the idea and
working towards the achievement of the same.
Appraisal process which is more dependent on performance than time driven will help in
motivating employees and make them performs better. This will also bring in more
innovations in the company.
Ryan Air
The biggest challenge for Ryan air remains the loyalty factor of its employees. While they
have refused to join unions till now, it has been more with the money power rather than
loyalty. Respect to the employee seems to be the biggest factor for employees to work in
any organization. The study by McKinsey shows that praise and commendation from the
employer is a bigger draw for employees than even cash incentives (McKinsey global, 2009)
Figure 12: Mckinsey; Non-financial and financial incentives.
For the long run strategy, Ryan Air should look at taking the employees on their payrolls to
ensure better loyalty, ownership and better customer service. As employees of a third party,
they would neither focus on the customer of the company nor on the vision of Ryan Air.

17. 3.3 Political frame
“Every company has two organizational structures: The formal one is written on the
charts; the other is the everyday relationship of the men and women in the
organization” - Harold S Geneen
In an ideal world the best way to know and understand a company it is enough to read their
policies and processes. However, there are some unwritten and unspoken factors
influencing right from the strategic as well as the day to day decisions of an organization.
The political frame looks at an organization as a contest of individuals and groups. The
assumptions for the same being;
 Companies are a association of individuals and pressure groups.
 Differences persist in the beliefs and interests in the members.
 Major reason for conflicts being the allocation of the scarce resources.
 Stake holders drive a bargain to protect and enforce their interests in the decisions.
In the light of the above mentioned assumptions, it is easy to conclude that unless a
company is under a totalitarian government, the political frame will be in place in all
companies in some form or the other.
Two major interest groups in the airline industry have been the unions and inter
departmental frictions. If the political frame is analysed through the two companies in
question, it can be seen different challenges and different methods of handling them.
British Airways
The legacy of being a sovereign company has resulted in the company facing a friction with
their unions. Any decisions taken by the company, be it the short term or strategic, has faced
road blocks from the unions. This was quite apparent in the company‟s decision to make BA
a leaner and more adaptable organization in 2011, where the unions retaliated with industrial
action. This has resulted in the company being very slow to changes and turn around curve
post recession being a really long one.
A British airway has also been subjected to a lot of criticism by employee unions for their
disparate treatment of pilots and cabin crews. While they seem to be bending their backs to
the pilots associations for every demand, they have been abrasive towards cabin crews.
Even their perks and benefits like stay in hotels while on work have been differentiated with
cuts in cabin crew allowances. This has been confirmed by (Asquith, 2012) in his discussion.
Some of their strategy to create unity in the team like „hug the pilot‟ also seems more bent
towards satisfying the pilots.
Ryan Air
“As soon as the fear approaches near, attack and destroy it” – Chankya, Arthashastra
The above quote symbolises the strategy of Ryan Air in dealing with all their threats, be it
irate customer, threatening government or disruptive unions. While the unions have tried
their best to enrol the staff, especially the pilots of Ryan air, the airline strategy have been to

18. keep the pilots at their side through any means. This has ensured that no union has so far
been able to penetrate the employees of Ryan air and cause any difficulty in their single
most strategy of cost reduction.
With most of their cabin crew and ground staff on third party payrolls, Ryan air has also
negated the chances of a friction from unions in their lower tier of employees. While from
the outside it does look politics free or only top down politics, it‟s quite safe to say that with
no say in either strategy or power to give feedback, there would be an undercurrent of
dissatisfaction among the employees, especially the cabin crew and ground staff.
Figure 13: Power Controlling Conflicts and Interest
After analysing both the company models it can be concluded that the politics in an
organization is driven by the power centre. In case of BA there seem to be multiple power
centre‟s with the CEO and various pressure groups like BALPA and Unite all having a say in
the eventual decision of the company. Ryan Air, the power seems to rest solely with their
CEO Michael O‟Leary, which has helped them marginalise all other potential threats and
thus able to guide the company in their projected path.
3.3.1 Recommendations
Politics in an organization cannot be defined in any frame as this is normally all pervasive or
absent. So while it is impossible to eradicate politics in an organization, it can be managed
to make it positive and fruitful. The recommendations for the same are captured through the
recommendations in HR, Structural and leadership frames.
3.4 Symbolic frame
Culture has many definitions and perspectives; there has been much discussion and
construction of theoretical frameworks over the years. (Deal and Kennedy, 2000) and
(Schein, 2010) state that there are many different cultures and subcultures within
organisations, consideration should be given to differing facets of both organisations; a)
there is the culture of the teams within each aircraft and b) the pervasive culture within the
organisational structure. It should be noted that, ideally the aircraft culture should be a
subset of the organisation. Organisational culture affects all facets of the organisation and
the stakeholders involved within it. It is best summed up as (Deal and Kennedy, 2000)
stated;

19. “it is the way things get done around here”
According to (Hofestede, 1991), culture is learned, which implies it can be taught.
Organisations can and should disseminate their culture through any means available,
reinforcing company values and beliefs onto the workforce and utilising the concept of
employee branding, where the personnel becomes extensions of the company.
Due to the polarisation of their business models and strategies, BA and Ryanair have
somewhat differing cultures and methods of using human resources to deliver their business
strategies. From reviewing of the websites of the two organisations the cultures which are
discussed explicitly from BA are; Safety, Diversity and Inclusion, and most critically a
“customer focused culture” (British Airways, 2011) It could be argued that BA also leveraged
their cultural heritage.
Ryanair, by contrast, mentions no cultural values on their website; this would dilute their
focused core premise of the “lowest fares, lowest cost” paradigm which not only is their
strategy, but it could also be argued is their “no frills” culture (Clark, 2005).
The cultural and symbolic analysis of both organisations takes perspectives from amongst
others Deal and Kennedys, Harrison and Stokes, Schiens and Hofstedes work.
History
“A shared narrative of the past lays the foundation for corporate culture.” (Deal and
Kennedy, 2000)
BA is an organisational dating back over 90 years, the history is rich and has had to undergo
many organisational changes throughout this period. Whilst a rich heritage is something the
marketers can leverage (Keller, 2003), from an organisational perspective legacy practices
will not work in the future, organisations have to be lean and agile in today‟s competitive
environment. BA‟s cultural legacy is driven from pre-nationalisation days (Asquith, 2012),
this has led it to become a slow, difficult to change beaurocracy with entrenched
perspectives.
Conversely, Ryanair‟s history is relatively recent; it has been trading in its present profitable
(post 1991) form (Ryanair.com, N/A). Since inception Ryanairs paradigm has been low cost
low fares, thus their history is one of the paradigm the culture continues to be focused on
this.

20. Values and Beliefs
“Cultural identity is formed around the shared beliefs of what is really important, and
the values that determine what the organization stands for.” (Deal and Kennedy, 2000)
“To Fly, to serve” (British Airways, 2012)
BA values and beliefs are outlined in their 2011 business
strategy; this is further
decomposed in the vision and the goals required to realise
the concept (British Airways, 2011). By detailing which
values are important the organisation has communicated
to the personnel what is expected of them and how it
should be achieved. There are many challenges to this;
the vision, values and strategy has changed several times
over the past decade (Asquith, 2012).
Figure 14: BA's Vision and Strategy
These changes are difficult to manage and have not been managed appropriately (Asquith,
2012) (Grugulis and Wilkinson, 2002). Furthermore, post 2010 strike, the organisation is
viewed with suspicion by the cabin crew members and ensuring buy in for new initiatives is
challenging. The engagement of long serving “old contract” crewmembers continues to
prove difficult (Asquith, 2012), prior to 1997 the personnel were on effectively civil service
contracts and were well recompensed this has led to a “golden handcuff” culture whereby
personnel can‟t afford to change roles (Asquith, 2012). The downfall of this is twofold; these
personnel do not wish to be engaged and participate in the new values of the strategy and
vision. Furthermore, as they are senior personnel they should be driving the values and
beliefs and by being exemplars to the junior personnel, but as they are not engaged the
vision is not reinforced and their paradigm of “to fly, to serve” does not necessarily work with
the old contract staff.
Ryanair‟s corporate values are set out in their charter; this is an extension of the paradigm
(Ryanair, N/A). From an HR perspective they state “Ryanair endeavours to control its labour
costs by continually improving the productivity of its already highly-productive work force.”
(Ryanair, N/A). These values and beliefs are reinforced by their CEO O‟leary who stated that
“We all employ some lazy ******* who needs a kick up the backside, but no one can bring
themselves to admit it.” Furthermore staff costs are usually the highest cost to an
organisation (Clark, 2009). Crew training is paid for by individual personnel (Penman, 2008).
The core values of Ryanair, in reality, devalue their staff, they are treated as commodities
rather than assets. Their treatment of staff is so poor the ITF set up a website to support
personnel working for the company (International Transport Workers Federation, n.d.).
There is no reason why Ryanair would distance itself from the core strategy of low costs, this
again reinforces the values and beliefs espoused by the organisation.

21. Heroes and Villains
It is challenging to extract Ryanair and
Michael O‟leary from one another, they are
intertwined, in an almost symbiotic
relationship. This relationship is so
important that in the annual report one of
the risks identified is over-dependence of
certain managers (Ryanair, n.d.). O‟leary is
the exemplar of the low cost culture;
“Recently I did an interview and I was
sitting there with a hotel pen I‟d nicked
from somewhere. I was asked why and I said: We at Ryanair have a policy of stealing
hotel pens. We won‟t pay for Bic biros as part of our obsession with low costs.” (Kilduff,
2010). Furthermore, O‟leary drives Ryanair‟s publicity from the front in order to save
money on marketing, and is seen promoting the airline regardless of location or e
(Eleftheiou-Smith, 2012). Much like Ryanair, O‟leary polarises opinion and could be
viewed as either a hero or villain. O‟leary personifies the culture of the organisation.
BA‟s last CEO, Willie Walsh, who was in the limelight regularly was could be considered
a villain to the crew and a hero to the management and shareholders. He personified the
organisation through the 2010 cabin crew industrial action. He has now become the CEO
of the holding company IAG. The present BA CEO incumbent is lower key, on his
appointment he used far conciliatory language and viewed the staff as “absoloutely
essential for the brand” (Osborne, 2011) and through his governance further industrial
action was averted. The Inflight Business Manager who was interviewed for this paper
was asked whether there were myths, heroes, he responded that this was not a tool BA
utilised.
Symbols
BA in 2012 have reintroduced their “to fly, to serve”
paradigm, this is reinforced with the return of the coat
of arms, this was originally granted to the British
Overseas Airline Corporation by the college of
Heralds in 1939 (British Airways, 2012) The use of
this symbol signifies the heritage and is in line with the
2011 business strategy goals of “reignite passion and
belief in the brand” and “create the culture and
capabilities for success.” By reinforcing the brand with
symbols and legacies BA are trying to reengage with
all stakeholders, be they staff or customers (British
Airways, 2011). Figure 15: BA's returning
coat of arms (British Airways,
The Uniform and Wings symbols are further discussed 2012)
in the ceremony section.

22. Rituals
“Prior to every flight all cabin crew must go through a pre-flight briefing regardless of airline”
(International Civil Aviation Organisation, n.d.).
From BA‟s perspective this is formulated as a ritual, the senior cabin crew member leads the
meeting and every crew member is asked a safety question. The crew then pick their
working position on the aircraft; the order is based upon seniority (Unsupported source
type (Interview) for source Mos12.). This ritual is required for several reasons, the cabin
crew are able to identify with one another as the senior crew member sets the cultural
requirements that they require by the team of personnel on board. Furthermore it supports
the safety and security culture required by the organisation.
Ryanair, too have to conform to the mandatory requirements laid down by the ICAO and
generally follow the same safety briefings, however the crew are not paid for this 45 minute
requirement (A.I.T., 2012), from a HR perspective this lack of payment is likely to demotivate
the crew and undermine the safety culture.
Another BA ritual which was described to one of the authors was the “crew bus drink” these
was a ritual whereby on the completion of a flight, the cabin crew on their way to the hotel
“down-route” would have a drink on the bus and unwind. This practice was banned due to
BA‟s health and safety culture. The unintended consequence of this requirement was that
crew morale decreased and that the interaction and camaderie was lessened across the
fleet.
Ceremonies
On commencing employment at British Airways, cabin crew are
inducted into a six week training program. At the outset the
probationary crew are given their uniforms, but not allowed to wear
them. Only after they have been trained for two weeks and have
been taught the values of the organisation, the importance of the
uniform and what is means to represent the organisation are they
allowed to wear it. The new crew are then told on which day they
can wear it and thus the whole cohort comes in together fostering a
sense of camaderie. On completion of their training they are on
probation for six months in the worldwide fleet. Once this six month
period is complete the whole group returns to the centre to
complete the “wings” ceremony and they are given their wings
which signifies them as fully qualified and accepted cabin crew and
part of the BA culture. Figure 16: Crew-
member at the wings
Ryanair, conversely requires their personnel to pay €2800 for their ceremony
cabin training (Crewlink, n.d.) and is something of a contentious
issue due to some sources suggesting that the training payments are utilised as a revenue
stream (Penman, 2008). Furthermore the crew are required to rent their uniforms for €25 a
month. The organisation had lowered the crews expectations in line with their business
model.

23. Now that the various facets of the organisations have been identified and analysed it is
possible to further disseminate the organisations in terms of models.
Harrison and Stokes
(Harrison, 1993) states that the model should be used as a descriptive rather than evaluative
tool and that each culture type has both positive and negative aspects.
Ryanairs culture is based on highly centralised power base; it is
centralised around O‟leary and he drives the organisation from a
top down perspective (Creaton, 2004). The structure of the
organisation has been kept flat to ensure that is lean and agile in
all aspects. The challenge that the organisation may have is that
the CEO‟s force of character may take them into an incorrect
direction as there is no input from other personnel (Creaton,
2004).
Figure 17: Power
Reviewing the board, the majority of the board have either been Culture (Harrison,
involved with the organisation for long periods (Ryanair.com, N/A) 1993)
and the governance issues could be problematic as the board
may not challenge the CEO. The fact that O‟leary is also on the board which is against the
recommended code of governance (Ferrira, 2010) will not help the board challenge the CEO
and his methods which may be involved in group think (Janis, 1982).
British Airways culture by comparison is the Role, this is based on a
highly formalised structure containing order, stability and control
(Harrison, 1993). BA has many legacies from the national carrier.
This has resulted in an entrenched organisational cultural mind-set,
which although the organisation has tried to change, changing
culture is always difficult (Hofestede, 1991). The hierarchical
structure has too many strata resulting in a top heavy, slow to react,
organisation. From a micro cabin crew level, the advent of the mixed
fleet and an injection of new personnel, the infusion of personnel
from the bottom up may change the emphasis of the organisation
and remove the “golden handcuffs” mindset. Figure 18: Role
Culture (Harrison,
1993)
Slocum and Hellriegel.
Utilising (Slocum and Hellriegel, 2006) model the organisations can be viewed from a four
aspects, which are influenced by internal and external factors and how agile and able to
change they are.
British Airways culture sits between Clan and Bureaucratic. Clan culture is based on
tradition, loyalty, personal commitment, teamwork and social influences. This culture can be
seen throughout the cabin crew, the have to be extensively social; every time they fly they
are generally with a new group of people and have to function as a team, the bonding and
camaderie could be likened to a clan. This is futher reinforced by their clannish behaviour
during the recent industrial action where the vast majority acted cohesively to fight against
an “aggressor,” even though that was their employer.

24. Bureaucratic culture is based on formality, rules and hierarchical coordination. The individual
roles are clearly defined and the organisation aspires to stability and efficiency. BA‟s
organisation is based on this type of culture. It is internalised, stable, slow to change and
may result in poor performance during challenging economic times. If the organisation was
able to leverage the crews clannish culture and reengage those disenfranchised personnel it
would take the positives and divest some of the negative connotations.
Figure 19: (Slocum and Hellriegel, 2006)
Ryanair has a simple raison d‟etre, to make money, to achieve this their strategy is to cut
costs resulting in the organisation being Europes leading low fares airline (Ryanair.com,
N/A). To achieve this, its HR relationship is with its employees is functional and their
remuneration is performance based. This is both for Pilots (sectors flown) and Cabin crew
(sales made on board) (Ryanair.com, N/A). Utilising the analysis it can be determined that
since its foundation Ryanair can be categorised as a market culture. Whilst being lean and
mean is admirable, the performance and “employees as assets” mentality will result in a high
turnover of personnel and dissatisfaction with the organisation. There will be no high
psychological contract connection as the organisation has lowered the expectations of the
personnel and those personnel will become disenfranchised with the company.
Schien
The model developed by (Schein, 2010) has three aspects Artefacts, Values and Basic
assumptions. Each level is interlinked and affects the others. Artefacts are those aspects
which are visible, for example, offices and uniforms, the externalisation of the brand, rituals
and ceremonies can also be placed in this aspect. Values are the invisible aspects, in BA‟s
case “to fly, to serve,” Basic assumptions are the invisible, unconscious and resistant to
change. In Ryanair‟s case the organisation has challenged the assumptions that uniforms
would be provided and that they could charge their phones on the company‟s expense
(Clark, 2005).
One of Ryanairs artefacts is the CEO, his visibility is synonymous with the company. Artfacts
can also comprise of language and is also part of the visible cultural aspect. The language
that O‟leary uses is robust to say the least and somewhat unexpected from a CEO of a

25. billion dollar organisation, however it is in keeping with the cheap, rough and to the point
philosophy of the company (Creaton, 2004).
Basis assumptions the organisation would provide for its staff have been challenged and
changed. The companies environments had to reflect its culture. All parts of the organisation
are expected to minimise costs wherever they are (Eleftheiou-Smith, 2012) (Clark, 2005).
Figure 20: Scheins levels of Organisational culture (Schein, 2010) adapted by
(Group.1, 2012)
British Airways, artefacts are their uniforms, their logo, the music from their adverts and of
course their tailfins. All these aspects visualise the culture of the organisation.
BA‟s values have changed over the years but in their latest iteration is summed up in the
paradigm “to fly, to serve” by reintroducing this motto they are leveraging their heritage and
putting the customer at the centre of everything that they do (British Airways, 2011).
Their basic assumptions of BA are that its personnel crew will be looked after; this is at odds
with the recent industrial action, where the crew felt that the organisation was taking arbitrary
and autocratic action and not acting in their best interests. BA are in a difficult position due to
the external influences of the competitive environment; they are not a low cost airline but
have to compete with companies like Ryanair. This is not achievable due to the fact that they
cannot follow the same business model as the low cost carriers and they ended up being a
hybrid which was not efficient and did not please their stakeholders.
3.4.1 Recommendations
Both organisations HR polices are aligned with the business strategy to some extent.
However the implementation and execution differs. BA‟s strategy has changed several times
over the past decade and the HR policies have changed to suit (Asquith, 2012), this is both
challenging to the organisation and personnel. It is difficult organise change in an efficient
manner; it is even more challenging when the organisation has a culture with a legacy
attached to it. Furthermore, the cabin crew staff which have been in the organisation since
the early 1990‟s are dyed in the wool and don‟t want to change, they don‟t want to leave as

26. they can‟t afford to, thus any change that is attempted is undermined by the recalricant
nature of these personnel. Any new junior personnel who come into contact with these
“seniors” are not likely to challenge the precepts given and the cycle does not change. Since
the organisations paradigm is “to fly to serve” the new business strategy is aligned with this,
the cultural changes which the organisation is bringing in are aligned with this. However as
discussed the execution may be challenging form both an organisation and cabin crew
perspective. Through the decades the organisation has been successful, but in recent years
they have had many challenges, trying to change the culture will be one of the toughest, but
if they manage to achieve this they will go into the future well set up and competitive.
Ryanairs strategy and HR policies are aligned, cut costs wherever possible, employees are
not assets, they are commodities to be used as and when the organisation sees fit. The
policies and strategy are so simple that it is easy to follow regardless of the standard of
personnel involved. The culture is one where personnel should expect nothing from the
organisation apart from the pay, which many would argue isn‟t particularly good (Creaton,
2004). By any standards, from a performance perspective Ryanair have been incredibly
successful but this is at the cost of personnel (A.I.T., 2012) (Clark, 2005) (Kilduff, 2010).
Looking to the future is this a company that will continue to set the bar or will its staff and
customers look to alternative travel arrangements as they don‟t want to be treated as cattle
or commodities?
3.5 Reframing Leadership
Several authors have discussed of leadership differently. Some authors have describe
leaders as who have the "Art of seeing things invisible" (Jonathan Swift) and able to give the
vision of the company.
Before understanding leadership within British Airways and Ryanair, a difference shall be
made between a manager and a leader. Bennis and Nanus (1985) suggest that "managers
do things right, and leader do the right thing", managers focus on execution whereas leaders
on the purpose. (Bolman and Deal, 2008)
The table below lists some differences bewteen a manage and a leader:

27. (Strathclyde University - MPIO Module, 2012)
Furthermore, Edgar H. Shein mentions that once the culture exists it determines the criteria
of leadership (Nellen, 1997), given that, it can be stated that culture defines the type of
leadership to be applied within a company.
Leadership is different to each frame in a company and has the following assumptions;
Figure 21: Leadership and the Other Frames
Inspired from (Bolman and Deal, 2008 : 356)
But, it is not suitable to decide which leadership is better before knowing what is the
objectives and the goal of the company. The leadership should be suited to the strategy of
the company and helpful in achieving the goal.
The leadership style applied by British Airways culture is bureaucratic because it is a kind of
organisation is "specifically designed to perform cetain functions"..."its operation is based on
a set of rules and procedures for every position or job" (McKenna and Beech, 2008: 56)
within the company. In addition to that, the governamental legacy reinforces this burecratic
leadership style (Paul, 2012).
Figure 22: BA Leadership Interaction (Group 1, 2012)

28. The figure above shows the flow of the chain of command in the BA, with equal participation
from all the stake holders in the execution of the strategy. The Figure 23 shows us where BA
stands in the Situational leadership matrix by Hersey and Blanchard in their situationa
leadership theory (Strathclyde University - MPIO Module, 2012), (Mind Tools, n.d.).
Figure 23: Situational Leadership for British Airways
Image adapted from Hersey and Blanchard
This showes that in BA has a delegating leadership style as there is an optimal balance
between the ability and the willingness from employees. Moreover, senior management
supports the suggestion and implementation of new ideas and in case of failure,
management backs the employees. (Paul, 2012)
Ryan Air
Some researchers describe a change of leadership style from the autocratic - "1985 Ryanair
is set up by the Ryan family with a share capital of just £1, and a staff of 25" (Ryanair, n.d.)-
to the democratic leadership style for RA " The leadership style O‟Leary has instituted at
Ryanair finds expression in a sort of transition: a movement from autocratic leadership to
democratic one (Nwagbara, 2011:7.) However, the reality seems to be bit different with the
dominating CEO, Michael O‟Leary driving the business. While the model of Ryan Air was
influenced by the model of Southwest airlines, the execution of the same is quite different
from the influencer.
Figure 24: RA Leadership Interaction (Group.1, 2012)

29. While the chain of command seems in discussion with the management, the employees dont
seem to have a say in either developing the strategy or execution of the same. This is
portrayed in the figure below which shows the situational leadership style of Ryan Air as low
on ability and low on willingness and thus being a „telling‟ form.
Relationship Leadership Task Leadership
M3 PARTICIPATING M4 DELEGATING
ABILITY
M1 PARTICIPATING M2 SELLING
WILLINGNESS
Figure 25: Situational Leadership for British Airways
Image adapted from Hersey and Blanchard
The common mistake made by a researcher is to be influenced by going through the both
leadership style and deciding the better on their face value. However, as mentioned earlier
we have to look at the style of leadership from the prism of the strategy of the company to
actually come to a conclusion.
With a strategy of being "the most admired airline" it is important for BA that each of their
employee has clear buy in to their strategy and their way of execution. So a leadership of
delegating seems the most suited for the company. The only concern BA might endure is the
flexibility of the employees in accepting some of the difficult decisions when they are related
to their comfort and compensation. This has been visible in the last two years by the
industrial actions by the ground staff over certain austirity measeres by the BA leadership.
Meanwhile "Ryanair business strategy is one of fanatical cost reduction and efficiency such
they can offer a basic low cost reliable and dependable service which is in high demand. "
(Rapid Business Intelligence Success, n.d.) and the strategy seems to be completely top
down and hence the telling method. While a lot of analysts and thinkers would disagree with
the style, it has to be highlighted that Ryan Air is probably the lowest gap between its goals
and achievements. Consequent to its top down approch, they have succeded in keeping the
unions at bay and has made the company very flexible in decisions and changes. This has
helped the company evolve and change according to the need of the hour.
Looking at the two companies with their different leadership style and the advantages and
disadvantages of both it is approprate to say that it is quite simplistic to say that one is better
than the other. The appropriate leadership of a company clearly depends on the objectives
set by its shareholders for the company. A Keith williams in Ryan Air might have been
ineffective in attaining their objectives and Michael O‟Leary in BA would have resulted in a
closure of the company in the shortest possible time, while both being affective in their styles
in the current positions.

30. 3.5.1 Recommendations
One of the primary driver for both change and sustenance for any strategy is visionary
leadership. The recommendation for both the companies is made with the corporate
objective in mind and the necessary steps to cover up any gap in the achievement of the
same.
British Airways
The leadership while having some of the most reputable people in the industry has had lots
of gaps in their execution of strategic decisions.
 Ear to the ground – There seems to be a gap in the awareness of the senior
management about the needs of the employees. This is quite apparent from the
industrial actions in the last few years by different groups of employees. The
management has to either get comprehensive feel of the employees or take them
into confidence before initiating serious changes.
 Stand tall – The Company has been perceived multiple times to have given in to the
threats by the unions. There are times in any company when the management has to
take tough decisions and stick to them. To make BA competitive in the current
scenario, it is imperative that the company becomes more dynamic and lean. This
cannot be done without a strong leadership able and willing to take decisions and
execute them.
 Longer reign – The leadership seems to be seeing constant changes after short
stints. This is resulting in frequent changes in the policies and strategies, which in
turn is confusing the employees. The company needs to have more stability at the
helm and execute a longer term strategy.
4 Project methodology and personal reflections
4.1 Project Methodology
4.1.1 Structural Frame
As we completed our first two modules it became evident that we were falling into siloed and
functional roles. Once the Governance assignment was completed we had an airing session
where we had an open forum and we discussed where we were going wrong, right and what
needed to change. Originally we could be considered in terms of Mintzbergs (Bolman and
Deal, 2008) bureaucracy where there was an operational engine; these were the writer
writers, with a support staff/technical team who were the document compiler and power point
makers.

31. Figure 26: Group 1 Structure Pre rationalisation adapted from Mintzberg (Bolman and
Deal, 2008)
This had the potential to be fairly dull for the rest of the two terms and wasn‟t lending itself to
the learning experience; it was more an extension of working life. At this juncture we
reviewed how we would move ahead. We decided that we would form an all channel
network (Bolman and Deal, 2008) organisation where by all personnel were responsible for
their own work. If someone for example, was reviewing the structural frame they would be
responsible and take ownership for all parts of their work.
Figure 27: All channel network, (Bolman and Deal, 2008).
4.1.2 Human Resources Frame
One of the key components in the HR policy in major companies is the diversity of the
employees and a process to keep the diversity alive and kicking. One heartening factors of
the group has been a mix of four nationalities and three continents with 3 Indians, 1 North
American, 1 British and 1 south American.
While different cultures have brought its own challenges to the group like craze of
punctuality of the British, tardiness of the Indians and Spanish of the Latin Americans, the
group have revelled in the diversity. The group has had friction due to different backgrounds
and work styles but probably the level of maturity and the objective set by each person while
forming the group has helped each take it in a stride. The reason for the group being able to
work well and understand each other is the sharing of life outside the work area. This
ensures that despite all the friction and heartburns in the office, once we step out we have
our own life with parties, lunches and dinners. The most important factor has been the

32. respect shown by each member of the organization and this has ensured that we not only do
well in the past assignments but also looking forward to future challenges.
4.1.3 Symbolic Frame
We have decided to call our group an organization as it signifies the seriousness with which
we approach everything that we do. The cultural perspective of our organization can be
analysed using the (Schein, 2010) model as follows.
Basic Assumptions: In addition to basic assumptions that organizations adopt like
punctuality, professionalism and commitment, our organization has adopted certain basic
assumptions recognizing the varied cultural differences among its members. Unspoken
consent exists that we would be accommodative of the eccentricities of each member and
be courteous at all times.
Values: Practices like Friday evening group lunches and feedback after each module is
prevalent in the organization. Our motto has evolved from being the best among the peer
organizations to being the best as well as helping each other to shape themselves better
and yet deliver a better product than peers. To achieve the new goal, we have adopted the
system of pairing where a symbiotic relationship among the members helps them evolve
better.
Artefacts: The organization adapts the use of technology and social media in all its activities
and in order to stay connected to each other and reinforce the collective strength.
4.2 Personal Reflections
4.2.1 Carolina Camacho
When I told my friends that I was going to prepare an MBA, they ask me if the objective was
to get a better salary at the end the year. Even more, one of my closest friend criticised me
before leaving France and told me that I was only focused on my career and not on essential
things of life such as family and health. To be completely honest, this was my principal goal
at the beginning of the programme, get a better job with a higher hierarchical level.
Six months after having initiated the MBA, I realised that I was completely wrong and that I
had to forget my BIG ego to be able to survive in the "Challum" class. The principal skill that
was the hardest to be developed was to learn how to listen to others and I still watching
myself in this aspect.
I had the great chance to work with Justin, Jose and Deepak during the first term and since,
we decided to live this MBA experience as a real "learning process" from the professional
and personal point of view. As a result, we decided to include in our team, people whose
goal was to work hard, to be able to go out from the comfort zone and to take the risk to "fail
safe, fail fast". For this reason, Chandra and Kathir joined us from January.
I consider my team "N°1" as a real organisation with the following features;
- Our vision: To do our best as much as we can and to learn from others
- Our objective: To generate personal and professional profits from this programme

33. - Our slogan: "We are going to die" (each time that we list all the actions to be done in a
short period of time)
- Our favourite activity: Talk about our multicultural differences and try to find out the
equivalent in our own culture.
As any organisation, we have interpersonal conflicts and situations in which frustration is
identified. To handle with that, we decided to bring it our as soon as possible and to realign
our strategy to guarantee the achievement of our common goal.
The learning process is still ongoing and we look forward for the strategy term to push our
limits even further.
4.2.2 Justin Moseley
We are working better and better as a group. Each module which passes we seem to have
more constructive discussions and it is less ego driven and more topic based. As a group we
spend a large amount of time with one another, I spend even more time with Jose as we go
to the gym together. This has led to friction and we are recognising it in ourselves, whilst we
have not got to the stage where we can avoid it, it is never personal and we forget about it
shortly afterwards.
During one of the group meetings we discussed what we wanted as an organisation, initially
we wanted to be the best and compete against the other teams. This perspective has
softened recently and we no longer measure ourselves against other teams. Our vision is to
“achieve the best results what we can as a group.” I had a discussion over lunch with one of
the other members and discovered that what is best for him is totally different for me. He is
looking for clarity and a structured thought process, I want to hit a distinction, but more
importantly I want to use the tools and skills which I have been taught once the MBA is
completed. I met a guy with an MBA and he was in this big office with his ego wall pasted up
with all his certificates and a couple of glass fronted lockers full of MBA books, I asked him
how much he used the frameworks from the MBA, he looked wistful and replied “not at all”. I
think it would be a real shame if that were to happen to me and a poor use of my time,
resources and life.
There have been intergroup challenges and we try to mitigate them wherever possible.
There are lot of cultural, racial and national differences. I am a stickler for punctuality due to
my Naval background and the perception of this value has caused some friction. However,
we bump along well and support each other wherever we can. Whenever one of the team is
having difficulty with their respective work we support them to move forward as a whole.
Recently we set a deadline to hand in the accountancy assignment so we could move
forward to MPIO, two of us managed to hit the deadline and the rest handed theirs in a week
later. This could have been an issue, but those who had completed were forthright and
stated that they wanted to stick with the plan and move forward with MPIO together. We
supported those laggards by proof reading their drafts and marking up where required. The
issue which has arisen is that we are behind on the MPIO deadline which then adds further
stress to the exams.

34. Regardless the challenges we have faced and no doubt continue to face, I am pleased to be
part of this team and we will keep on challenging and driving the team to excel and
subjectively be the “best.”
4.2.3 Deepak Varma
My selection of a school outside my country was to be able to work with people from
different backgrounds and learn from personalities more than lectures.
After having worked in 4 different groups in the first semester, the choice of this group was a
conscious and calculated decision. The primary reason being the number of years of
experience and varied backgrounds each member brings to the table. I can safely say that I
have possibly learnt more in this group by sharing with my team members more than the
books I have read or the lectures I have been to (leaving MPIO off course!).
The group while having its frictions and rough days, has always had the maturity to keep the
discussions at a professional level and never take it outside the room. This is more than
what I have seen in some other groups or in my past professional life.
My greatest benefit from the group has been the drive and energy displayed by the group
wants me to deliver better and learn more. I have been forced to work on my areas of
discomfort by my team mates whom I would have earlier shirked from.
While each in the group has their own strengths and weaknesses we have made sure we
help each other in coming „up to speed‟. One of the most exciting factors of working in a
good team is the opportunity to be able to help people who are ready to learn and learn from
team members who ready to share their knowledge.
I do consider lucky to be part of this group and hope to be able to live up to the expectation
of the rest of the team members.
4.2.4 Chandramouli Suresh
This group gives me a lot of scope to analyse and critic both my work as well as the thinking
behind a lot of our discussions.
From a structural perspective, we are an organization that evolves as a web. A week after
working together , we realized that the chain was only as strong as its weakest link. Hence
we decided to strengthen each other and grow as a group. This set our vision that we would
evolve as a group of rounded personalities who perform to the best of their abilities.
From a cultural and symbolic perspective, as a part of this group I take efforts to behave in
the most professional manner and be punctual as it is one of the basic assumptions of the
group.
From a human resources perspective, the group takes a lot of effort to motivate each other
and being a part of the group I feel the responsibility to motivate my peers to deliver the best
end product.

35. The political perspective is the most interesting for me to analyse. This is because of the
presence of natural leaders in the group and others who aspire to be leaders. Also the
cultural difference between the members fosters groupism and it is an important factor to be
taken into account during our discussions.
An important development for me is when I was paired up with a group mate that had a
working style completely different to mine. Though we had a disastrous first day, we were
aware of our differences and successfully found a method to work. Overall the group is
evolving from strength to strength and on track to reach our goal.
4.2.5 Kathiravan Abranantham
I was very excited when I left my country for the MBA program. I was looking forward for this
course as I had missed an earlier opportunity 3 years back to do masters in USA.I was the
most pampered kid in my family and my mother had warned me before that life is tough in a
foreign country as I would end up doing things on my own. The MBA program started with
excitement and fun. The biggest challenge I faced in my first semester is to adapt to the
working style of people with diverse background and different skill set. I am an activist and a
proactive thinker, which made my life much more difficult to convince people. I have
acquired lot of patience during the course of the program to handle people with courtesy and
respect. I am a friendly person who would like to socialize and make lot of friends. This in
born quality helped me to get good friends during the course of the first semester. I found
some people in my program to be weird as they didn‟t like me for being friendly with some
class mates whom they don‟t like. The biggest learning has been in treating human beings
emotions and predicting their mind set in well advance so that I can react cautiously to get
things done.
From January onwards, I had an opportunity to work with a TEAM of my choice. I was
fortunate to get in to the best group which had members from diverse background in terms
of ethnicity, experience and educational background. I loved the group for their commitment
and hard work towards work. The group dynamics had been good. There have been
conflicts due to extreme stress and those were resolved amicably through open dialogue. I
have some recommendations for the group, which will help the team to perform well in near
future.
1) Assign the right job for right people to get things done quickly during time constraints.
2) Identify the strength and weakness of every group member.
3) The group should be flexible to accommodate team member‟s interest.
4) There should be a regular feedback to identify the areas of improvisation.
5) A thin layer of bureaucracy exists that should be eliminated.
4.2.6 Jose Valdez
I feel very fortunate to work with the team I work with. We have a very balanced and diverse
team not only in personalities, but also in backgrounds.
We started to work as a group from the beginning of this year, and since then we establishes
some rules that we keep to bring a teamwork environment. For example, we always try to be

36. on time, and to do that we set a rule in which he last one to arrive, in case he is being late,
pays a coffee for the rest of the group. With this example we show respect to the group by
avoiding that the group repeats something already said.
It is quite easy that each member take a role and responsibilities aligned with their strengths
and skills. Especially when the team is working in a process that is repeated more than
once. However, we have decided to reassign a position to each member in order to be out of
our comfort zone and hence developing a new skill.
Specifically for this assignment, we decided to play with our strengths in order to achieve the
highest grade in the least time possible. Therefore, we build a strategy for the way we were
going to work as a team. The strategy that we built included three main pillars; a) using our
individual strengths b) assuring that everyone added value c) assuring that everybody
agreed with the points stated in the final paper.
First we decided the objective to follow together, to get the best grade possible and finish the
assignment 2 days before the deadline. Then, we defined the key success factors, we brook
down those factors into actions, we mapped them in a calendar and then we assign a
responsible for each action mapped. In the end we subdivide into groups of two, in which we
could have one person who were strong in academic writing while the other brings graphs
and pictures.
We mapped at least three group discussions, in which we tackled the conceptual guidelines
of our paper in order to be consistent all through the assignment.
The experience was enriching in many ways. We followed a very structured process, in
which we could feel as key contributor of the final piece of document of which we all feel
proud of, and I think we have achieved that.

38. 5 Bibliography
1 A.I.T. (2012, February 03). SF-IWA: Support the Ryanair Don`t Care Campaign`s
International Week of Action. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from http://www.iwa-
ait.org/?q=node/189
2 Air Scoop. (2011). Ryanair's business model 2011. Air Scoop, 15-18.
3 Asquith, P. (2012). Interview with British Airways Inflight Business Manager. Glasgow.
4 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Organizations - Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5 British Airways. (2011, 12 19). Business Plan 2011-15 - Questions and answers.
Retrieved March 11, 2012, from
file:///C:/Users/Justin%201330/Dropbox/7.%20MPIO/02%20-
%20Research%20Docs/01%20-%20BA/BA%20Intranet%20files/Intranet%20-
%20Business%20Plan%202011-15%20-%20Questions%20and%20answers.htm
6 British Airways. (2012). Coat of Arms Guidelines. London.
7 CAA. (2011). Aviation Trends - Quarter 4 2011. London: CAA.
8 Clark, A. (2005, April 23). Ryanair's latest cut on costs: staff banned from charging
phones. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/apr/23/theairlineindustry.transportintheuk
9 Clark, P. (2009, December 18). Lunch with the FT: Michael O’Leary. Retrieved March
12, 2012, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/073c8d40-e9ca-11de-ae43-
00144feab49a.html#axzz1ou9Mj5nA
10 Creaton, S. (2004). Ryanair: How a Small Irish Airline Conquered Europe (1st ed.).
London: Aurum Press.
11 Crewlink. (n.d.). Crewlink. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from
http://www.crewlink.ie/en/fees
12 Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate Cultures; The Rites and Rituals of Corporate
Life (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Perseus.
13 Eleftheiou-Smith, L. (2012, March 6). 'I'm our marketing director', says Ryanair boss
Michael O'Leary. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/sectors/travelleisure/article/1120551/Im-
marketing-director-says-Ryanair-boss-Michael-OLeary/
14 Ferrira, D. (2010). Board Diversity. In R. Anderson, & B. H.K, Corporate Governance.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15 Group 1. (2012). Group 1 - Strathclyde Business Scholl - MBA .
16 Grugulis, I., & Wilkinson, A. (2002, May). Managing Culture at British Airways: Hype,
Hope and Reality. Long Range Planning Journal, 35(2), 14.
17 Harrison, R. (1993). Diagnosing organisational culture (1st ed.). (M. Katzmiller, Ed.)
USA: Pfieffer.
18 Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organisations. London: McGraw - Hill Book Company
Europe.
19 International Civil Aviation Organisation. (n.d.). International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Retrieved March 12, 2012, from International Civil Aviation Organisation:
http://www.icao.int/Search/pages/Results.aspx?k=preflight%20briefing
20 International Transport Workers Federation. (n.d.). Ryan-be-fair. Retrieved March 12,
2012, from http://www.itfglobal.org/campaigns/ryan-be-fair.cfm
21 Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
22 Keller, K. (2003, 2003). Understanding brands, branding and brand equity. The institute
of direct marketing, 5(1), 7-20.

39. 23 Kilduff, P. (2010). Plane Speaking: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael O'Leary (1st ed.).
(P. Kilduff, Ed.) Aurum Press Ltd.
24 Kotler, P. (2003). Leadership: Kotler on marketing. Mars.
25 Management Study Guide. (n.d.). Great Man Theory of Leadership. Retrieved Mar 12,
2012, from http://managementstudyguide.com/great-man-theory.htm
26 Mckinsey&Company. (2008). Femal leadership, a competitive edge for the future.
Women Matter 2, 32.
27 Mind Tools. (n.d.). Belbin's Team Roles. Retrieved Mar 12, 2012, from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_83.htm
28 Mind Tools. (n.d.). The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership® Theory. Retrieved
Mar 13, 2012, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm
29 Mintzberg, H. (2009, Aug). The Best Leadership Is Good Management. Bloomberg
Businessweek ,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143068890733.htm.
30 MIT; CMU; Union Study;. (2010, Oct). Groups Demonstrate Distinctive 'Collective
Intelligence' When Facing Difficult Tasks.
31 Moseley, M. (2012, March 12). Cabin Crew. (J. Moseley, Interviewer)
32 Nellen, T. (1997, Oct). Organizational Culture & Leadership by Edgar H Schein.
Retrieved Mar 13, 2012, from http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/schein.html
33 Nwagbara, U. (2011, Mar). Homing in on Paradigm Shift: Ryanair Leadership in the Age
of Expensive Air Travel. Leadership Review, 11, 11.
34 Osborne, A. (2011, March 02). British Airways chief Keith Williams's fresh start with
crew. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8355702/British-Airways-
chief-Keith-Williamss-fresh-start-with-crew.html
35 Penman, A. (2008, September 25). Penman and Sommerland Investigate. Retrieved
March 12, 2012, from http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2008/09/ryanair-cabin-
crew-left-in-tea.html
36 Ryanair. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved 03 13, 2012, from Ryanair.com:
http://www.ryanair.com/en/about
37 Ryanair. (N/A). http://www.ryanair.com/doc/investor/Strategy.pdf. Retrieved March 12,
2012, from http://www.ryanair.com/doc/investor/Strategy.pdf
38 Ryanair.com. (N/A). http://www.ryanair.com/en/about. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from
http://www.ryanair.com/en/about
39 Schein, E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
40 Slocum, J., & Hellriegel, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Organisational Behaviour. London:
Mason.
41 Strathclyde University - MPIO Module. (2012). Introduction to Management &
Leadership. Glasgow: Strathclyde University.