Analyzing Organizational Structure And Performance Of Qantas Airways Essay.

Brief Idea on Organisational Structure

Discuss about the Analysing Organisational Structure and Performance.

The following paper is going to analyse the organisational structure of Qantas Airways Australia.  The analysis is going to be a business level analysis. Qantas Airways is the largest domestic and international airline in Australia. Qantas started its business in the country in the year 2012 on 13^th April with the operation of its first commercial flight. The main business of the Qantas group is its airlines brands. Qantas links more than 50 cities in the country and almost all the countries in the world. It has more than two hundred and fifty aircrafts in daily operation among which 160 aircrafts are operated in doemestic purpose and the rest are operated overseas. Qantas Airways have three sister organisations- Qantas, QantasLink and Jetstar.

In the organisation, there are more than nine million members and more than four hundred active program partners. As a business and service organisation Qantas has been providing the best service to the Autralian and international customers for more than five years. The loyalty of Qantas has been reportedly successful due to more than 50% household interventions (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2017).

Organisational structure is a concept or a process by which the program of an organisation is set through allocation of work to the particular organisation members, coordination of the employees in order to confirm the best organisational culture and supervision of work in order to ensure the quality of work done by the employees and the managers. The basic structure of an organisation is set by the directors of it (Ashkenas et al. 2015).

Organisational structure is categorised in different segments. The segments vary depending on the designed model of organisation. Basic structure comprises of an individual, it may consist of a department or branch of the company or a workgroup (Watson 2013). Followings are the general categories of the organisational structure:

The Qantas airways has clearly defined and structured the model of its organisational team in order to confirm specific business practices within it. This is how the corporate governance is practiced. The company has clearly structured the Hierarchy –community phenotype model providing different specific roles to the most suitable employees and the teams (Wang 2016).  This model follows the both the hierarchical participation and community participation practices in order to strengthen the ladder of community building in the company (Cummings and Worley 2014). Community building is highly prioritised by the present CEOs of Qantas domestic, Qantas International and QantasLink. The Chief Financial Officer of the Qantas Group Tino La Spina has also decided to frame a particular structure of the working employees in the organisation. The recent change of the Chief executive Officers of the Qantas group has been announced by the board of directors who hold the power of ultimate decision making pertaining to the core business practice of the organisation (Perrott 2015). The company has shown its belief on the long term working employees as most of the recruited CEOs and the CFO have been working with the group for more than 15 to twenty years(Qantas.com.au, 2017). Qantas group has specified its departments in the following departments following the standard model of structure in the particular industry-

Classification of Organisation Structure of Qantas

The company’s structure is absolutely post-bureaucratic in nature. As the company implements total quality management i.e. culture management and matrix management it definitely falls into that category. According to Shafritz, Ott and Jang (2015), a company falls under post-bureaucratic structure if it has proper formalisation of the working groups, codification of the working rules and ethics and proper enforcement of the terms for the employees. Since, Qantas has been following all the rules and enforcing them stringently and strategically upon the employees, it can be considered as a company having post-bureaucratic structure. The departmental heads of the company enjoys absolute power in making firm decision for the sake of business growth of it (Annosi,  Khanagha and Magnusson 2015).

The company also follows divisional structure as it empowers the divisional heads to operate divisional functions. Qantas has been working skilfully to ensure work division upon the workers according to the departments. Local coordination between the employees is also taken care of.  In the international level, the company has been able to comprise divisive workforce that has successfully linked departments like engineering and finance, attendance and logistics, marketing and human resources. However, every department is held responsible for the success of the other (Qantas.com.au 2017).

This model was designed by Griffiths and his scholarly group.  They structured the model from the concept of genetics. In terms of management and business, active participation of the workers or the employees in different sectors- formal hierarchical and informal community- is accounted. The model concerns about their mode of community building and way of expression.  Qantas Airways has the vast potentiality of involving the employees in formal hierarchical and informal community participation.  This is how the company maintains the Hierarchy – Community Model (March 2013).

The company, while maintaining the terms of the Corporations Act, has been providing ample independence to the directors to determine and take rightful and positive decisions pertaining to the welfare of the company (Homsombat and Fu 2014).   In case of corporate governance, continuous development of the directors is a vital part of the company. Diversity is another unique criterion of Qantas Airways while structuring the upper level body i.e. the body of governance.  Diversity in leadership has been one of the main focuses of the company while structuring the corporate body (Murray 2014).  It has, therefore, created a diversified council for the Chief Executive Officers.  The Diversity Council has regular working objective and the council meet together on a regular basis in order to analyse the present business operations as well as to propose future business strategies. In the Financial Year 2015-16 the council was seen o have taken some important initiatives regarding the strategic planning on the market as well as on the lower level organisational structure(Qantas.com 2017).

Type of Qantas Organisational Structure

Structural policies of the company:

 The company has created several policies in order to resolve structural problems and issues. This was done in order to highlight whether the employees working in different working communities have any grievances pertaining to the role and governance of the company.  However, legitimate grievances are considered from the higher level (Gross and Dreizler 2013).

Employee Share Trading policy:

This policy is one of the stringent policies made by the company in order to set limitations for the employees from taking part in the higher level governance. The policy was structured to ensure that the employees do not breach the security terms and conditions designed by the organisation (Su, Baird and Schoch 2015).

This policy was designed in order to allow the employees make report of the illegal and illegitimate concerns or activities happeing in the different level in the company.  This was designed so that the employees remain loyal to the company and set proper working environment (Lucarelli 2014).

Different company issues and positivity have effective influence on the organisational structure of it (Dischner 2015). Followings are the influences that may have different impacts on the structure of an organisation:

Organisational Culture: Qantas Airways is known for its positive culture and behaviour of the employees. The companies are highly motivated to express their urge of creativity.

Business Strategy: organisational structure of a company is set according to the desgned business strategy and Qantas is of no exception. From the higher level governance to the class four staff- the company has been structuring and guiding the workforce to provide best service to the customers (Adizes, Cudanov and Rodic 2017).

 The massive problem that the company has been facing or it is rather worthy to say what the company is criticised for is the frequent change in the managerial workforce division. It has been found that the managers are often shifted or replaced by the new comers. The other issues, which is rather a minor one, is that the company often becomes stringent to maintain its policies. Constant change in the organisational policies has been affecting the structure of the organisation. The effects have attitudes of duality.

Conclusion:

Organisational structure is one of the key factors behind the success of a company. There are multiple effects of organisational structure- starting from organisational behaviour to the higher level corporate business.  Qantas has been one of the largest airliners in the world. This massiveness of the company has different structural design altogether. It has helped the company in measuring performance of it.  It can easily be concluded that the organisational structure of Qantas Airways is a cohesive and well designed one affecting the overall performance of the company in a positive way.

Reference:

Adizes, I., Cudanov, M. and Rodic, D., 2017. Timing of Proactive Organizational Consulting: Difference between Organizational Perception and Behaviour. Amfiteatru Economic, 19(44), p.232.

Annosi, M.C., Khanagha, S. and Magnusson, M., 2015. Breaking the iron cage: A multi-level perspective towards organizational control in post-bureaucratic structure. In Strategic Management Special Conference, St. Gallen, 2015.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S., 2015. The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley & Sons.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 2017. Cartels case studies & legal cases. [online] Available at: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/cartels/cartels-case-studies-legal-cases [Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].

Burke, W.W., 2013. Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014. Organization development and change. Cengage learning.

Dischner, S., 2015. Organizational structure, organizational form, and counterproductive work behavior: A competitive test of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic views. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4), pp.501-514.

Gross, E.K. and Dreizler, R.M. eds., 2013. Density functional theory (Vol. 337). Springer Science & Business Media.

Homsombat, W., Lei, Z. and Fu, X., 2014. Competitive effects of the airlines-within-airlines strategy–Pricing and route entry patterns. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 63, pp.1-16.

Lucarelli, G., 2014. The corporate strategy of Qantas Airways. A case study.

March, J.G., 2013. Handbook of Organizations (RLE: Organizations) (Vol. 20). Routledge.

Murray, P.A., 2014. Organisational structure and strategic control.

Perrott, B.E., 2015. Building the sustainable organization: an integrated approach. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(1), pp.41-51.

Qantas.com. 2017. Corporate Governance | Qantas. [online] Available at: https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/governance-structure/global/en

Qantas.com.au. 2017. Corporate Governance and Structure. [online] Available at: https://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/corporateGovernance/2016CorpGov.pdf [Accessed 26 Mar. 2017].

Qantas.com.au. 2017. Qantas Press Release. [online] Available at: https://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/investors/qantas-sustainability-review-2013.pdf

Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S., 2015. Classics of organization theory. Cengage Learning.

Su, S., Baird, K. and Schoch, H., 2015. The moderating effect of organisational life cycle stages on the association between the interactive and diagnostic approaches to using controls with organisational performance. Management Accounting Research, 26, pp.40-53.

Wang, S., 2016. Structural Expansion vs. Structural Reorganization. Browser Download This Paper.

Watson, T., 2013. Management, organisation and employment strategy: New directions in theory and practice. Routledge.