(I'm not entirely sure if this is the right thing to do, breaking off another thread, but it seems we've got two discussions evolving in the strike thread - the strike itself, and how we got there in terms of mistakes that appear to have been made by management along the way... So, I've peeled off a new thread. Mods, feel free to lock/kill/merge as necessary.)
The fact that the first strike in the history of VS is only days away must be acting as a wake up call to the management. Hopefully, the right message is received (morale is poor, things are bad), not the wrong one (scumbag militant staff making my life hard).
The wakeup call should send the message that VS haven't coped particularly well with scaling from the 'smaller, friendlier' VS of 1998 to the larger VS of 2008.
When the airline was smaller, it would have been much easier for decision makers to remain in contact with what was going on at ground level. As a business grows, the classical thing for management to do is to move behind an abstraction layer of reporting and statistics, just so the information becomes manageable.
However, a lot of detail and sentiment can become buried behind the statistics - 'up and to the right is good, right?'.
There's probably a whole bunch of decisions taken along the way, that with the benefit of hindsight, with a stronger connection to the issue and with more detailed information, VS management might have done differently.
To avoid this 'ivory tower syndrome', VS management need to go and regularly 'dip themselves' into the operational functions of their business, to see first hand what the problems are, and bring these back to the rest of the management team so decisions can be made.
As Pete and Richard rightly point out, many of the managers in VS have worked their way through the airline industry, and are aviation professionals through and through. But that doesn't absolve them from a requirement to keep themselves intimate with how business is going at ground level.
Longer term, having cut loose the junk from this period of unrest, who's going to point out the errors made in a self-effacing, non-judgmental and honest manner, and light the way back to what VS wants and needs to be?
I don't believe it can be a classical management consultant, nor can they be from within the existing Virgin culture - they will come with baggage (if you'll excuse the pun).
It does need to be someone who has a passion for what Virgin Atlantic aim to deliver each day, and I think they need to be somehow vested in the success of the business.
While I don't think it will solve all of VS' problems, I think a Customers' Council/Forum (as an advisory group) plays a part of this role, as they meet the above criteria pretty well.
A panel like this acts as a sounding board, a bell-weather or temperature gauge of current performance, and provide the organisation with a 'conscience', something which is often lacking in the modern corporate body.
When a panel like this meets, it meets with a cross-section of the senior management team, experts from the various disciplines within the business (specifically ones which are up for discussion on that meeting's agenda), and some front-line staff reps.
VS management should seriously be considering forming such a group from among a cross-section of VS regular passengers, and I don't just mean FC Aus, or GBTOPs (or whatever they are called). You need a good cross-section of VS customers, including people who fly down the back to MCO to see 'the mouse' a couple of times a year, as well as those who are jetting off in UC every few weeks.
Then we might not have had to face what we've perceived as errors in service delivery, such as 'scrooge packs', 'plastic terror' W seating, cut-back naff quality J menus, dirty planes, unrecognisable Y food, flights that run out of drinks, crappy outsourced customer service, etc.
Mike
The fact that the first strike in the history of VS is only days away must be acting as a wake up call to the management. Hopefully, the right message is received (morale is poor, things are bad), not the wrong one (scumbag militant staff making my life hard).
The wakeup call should send the message that VS haven't coped particularly well with scaling from the 'smaller, friendlier' VS of 1998 to the larger VS of 2008.
When the airline was smaller, it would have been much easier for decision makers to remain in contact with what was going on at ground level. As a business grows, the classical thing for management to do is to move behind an abstraction layer of reporting and statistics, just so the information becomes manageable.
However, a lot of detail and sentiment can become buried behind the statistics - 'up and to the right is good, right?'.
There's probably a whole bunch of decisions taken along the way, that with the benefit of hindsight, with a stronger connection to the issue and with more detailed information, VS management might have done differently.
To avoid this 'ivory tower syndrome', VS management need to go and regularly 'dip themselves' into the operational functions of their business, to see first hand what the problems are, and bring these back to the rest of the management team so decisions can be made.
As Pete and Richard rightly point out, many of the managers in VS have worked their way through the airline industry, and are aviation professionals through and through. But that doesn't absolve them from a requirement to keep themselves intimate with how business is going at ground level.
Longer term, having cut loose the junk from this period of unrest, who's going to point out the errors made in a self-effacing, non-judgmental and honest manner, and light the way back to what VS wants and needs to be?
I don't believe it can be a classical management consultant, nor can they be from within the existing Virgin culture - they will come with baggage (if you'll excuse the pun).
It does need to be someone who has a passion for what Virgin Atlantic aim to deliver each day, and I think they need to be somehow vested in the success of the business.
While I don't think it will solve all of VS' problems, I think a Customers' Council/Forum (as an advisory group) plays a part of this role, as they meet the above criteria pretty well.
A panel like this acts as a sounding board, a bell-weather or temperature gauge of current performance, and provide the organisation with a 'conscience', something which is often lacking in the modern corporate body.
When a panel like this meets, it meets with a cross-section of the senior management team, experts from the various disciplines within the business (specifically ones which are up for discussion on that meeting's agenda), and some front-line staff reps.
VS management should seriously be considering forming such a group from among a cross-section of VS regular passengers, and I don't just mean FC Aus, or GBTOPs (or whatever they are called). You need a good cross-section of VS customers, including people who fly down the back to MCO to see 'the mouse' a couple of times a year, as well as those who are jetting off in UC every few weeks.
Then we might not have had to face what we've perceived as errors in service delivery, such as 'scrooge packs', 'plastic terror' W seating, cut-back naff quality J menus, dirty planes, unrecognisable Y food, flights that run out of drinks, crappy outsourced customer service, etc.
Mike
.
