Read the case study below and then answer ALL four questions.

HOVERTEC
Hovertec is a large company which has been manufacturing civilian and military helicopters for nearly 50 years. The company is very successful in its field and during 2023 / 2024 achieved total sales over R280 million. Profits before taxation exceeded R16 million. Hovertec employs over 6000 people, most of whom work in three manufacturing plants which are situated in Gauteng, North-West Province and the Western Cape.

The company has developed two main types of helicopters. These are the ‘Falcon’ range of small helicopters, which are sold to civilian operators and the ‘SX/Hawk’ range of small and large military helicopters which are produced for government defence projects. Some export orders of ‘XS/Hawk helicopters are manufactured for NATO countries.

The Manufacture of a Helicopter
Without going into technical details, the manufacture of a helicopter can be divided into five interconnected processes:
1. The power unit, which ‘drives’ the helicopter like an engine drives a motor car.
2. The helicopter loom, which is an inter-woven collection of between 1200 and 2000 insulated copper wires and electrical cables, connecting the power unit with the various ‘control’ switches, dials, buttons and levers in the cockpit and passenger/crew compartment, and can be compared, in human terms, with the function of the spinal cord in linking the brain with the arms and legs, etc.
3. The external rotor blades, which are mounted over the cockpit and passenger / crew compartment, and also above the tail of the helicopter.
4. The cockpit and passenger / crew compartment, which has a different layout, services and accessories depending on whether the helicopter is intended for civilian or military purposes.
5. The superstructure or shell, which encases the helicopter in a similar manner to the bodywork on a motorcar.

Although the latest technology is used in these production and assembly processes, the manufacture of a complete helicopter is a relatively slow process, taking three weeks for a civilian unit and four weeks for the larger, more sophisticated military helicopter. The main ‘bottleneck’ in the process is the long time taken to assemble the helicopter loom and complete the 1200 – 2000 connections between the power unit and the numerous helicopter systems and services.

Assembling a Helicopter Loom
Because of the complexity of the task and the high risk of error, the assembly of each helicopter loom is normally carried out by one loom technician who takes up to two weeks (ten working days) to assemble a complete loom unit. Production output is maintained by a team of 24 loom technicians who work in two shifts of 12 technicians per shift. The loom technicians are all qualified maintenance fitters who have received extensive training from the company in loom-assembly procedures. They are the highest paid section of the workforce after the supervisors and management, and they receive other benefits, such as membership of the company pension scheme, medial aid, and additional holiday entitlement which is related to length of service with the company.

All of these technicians are men, aged between 36 and 50 years with between 8 and 15 years service with the company. Many were recruited from the country’s defence force where they received basic training as maintenance fitters. This form of recruitment is adopted, first, because the loom technicians help to assemble both civilian and military helicopters and possible security risks have to be minimised on government contracts. Second, the majority of Hovertec mangers possess army or naval backgrounds and strong links are maintained with the defence force.

Perhaps one striking difference between the working conditions at the Hovertec factory in Gauteng and those at their previous employment in the defence force is that all the loom technicians belong to a trade union which is recognised by the company, although in practice the Hovertec management frequently circumvent the union representatives by informing the workforce directly of changes in procedures, policy etc., using ‘briefing’ procedures.

An Improved Helicopter Loom-Assembly Method
Hovertec’s 2022 company Corporate Plan concluded that: “Because of the constricting squeeze on defence projects and on the finances of civilian helicopter operators, which appears likely t continue until the world recession ends and general demand picks up, future activity in the three factories will be at the lower level during the next two to three years than seemed likely a few years ago.”

A detailed cost-cutting exercise was introduced on the strength of this plan, with particular emphasis on the helicopter loom workshop. For example, all overtime working was withdrawn in September 2022. Meanwhile, Hovertec’s Research and Development Department had devised a radically new method of assembling helicopter looms which, under pilot project conditions, reduced the assembly time from two weeks (ten working days) to two working days. The new method had the added advantage of allowing unskilled labour to be employed and resulted in a saving of assembly costs.

Instead of one technician assembling a single loom, by following a blueprint in a painstaking way, the new method relies upon a team of five operators working together and following a sequence of ‘instructions’ provided by a computer. The 1200-2000 insulated copper wires and electrical cables are previously ‘coloured coded’ in terms of the ten main helicopter operating systems. Each operative is given responsibility for two sets of colour-coded wires and cables and is required to thread the leads of one colour through the loom, one at a time, by following a ‘map’ which is set out on a visual display unit.

The total computerised layout, which appears on a separate large screen, resembles a coloured map. For example, as one operator threads each blue electrical cable through the loom, a blue light flicks on as each correct ‘station’ is reached. If an error is made, the appropriate light fails to appear and a buzzing alarm sounds continuously until the mistake is corrected and the correct ‘route’ is reestablished. At the same time, the computer directed system can also be used for the other colour-coded electrical connections and the team is therefore able to assemble the loom simultaneously, without slowing down or interfering with each other’s work.

Further trials conducted by the Research and Development Department indicated that small groups of five female workers achieved, on average, 40% higher productivity than similar teams of male operators. The highest productivity was consistently achieved under laboratory conditions by a team of 18 to 19 year old female school leavers, who were permitted to choose their working partners and were also allowed to change from one ‘colour code’ to another whenever they became bored with one colour or started to make errors. This team was given ten-minute ‘rest pauses’ every hour to change ‘colour codes’ and was supervised by a member of the Research and Development Department team, who also collected data on the group’s productivity.

Proposed Changes in the Helicopter Loom Workshop
Within six months, a decision was taken by the Hovertec senior management to transfer the new computerised system pilot project to the loom workshop on a three-months’ trial basis. Management informed the workforce about the proposed trials beforehand and the loom technicians accepted the proposed change after receiving a personal assurance that no retrenchments would occur as a result of the trial. The company wrote to their trade union about ten days later, during the week when the trial began, to inform them of the new situation; and also pointed out that the trial would allow full-time employment to be offered to five female school-leavers who would otherwise be out of work.

Outcome of the Trial
Within two weeks of the new computerised system being installed, thee of the five female operators in the work group handed in their notice because of the continual abuse from, and arguments with, the loom technicians. Productivity fell far below the expected targets on every day after the first loom was completed (in four days). The cause of low productivity was invariably due to breakdowns of equipment (loss of visual display unit pictures was the most frequent fault) which, according to the Research and Development Department, was a direct result of vandalism. A serious argument broke out on one occasion between a loom technician and the Research and Development supervisor, who had earlier asked the technician to leave the visual display unit area and return to his own work area, and the outcome was that disciplinary action had to be taken against the loom technician.

Three days later, the trade union representing the loom technicians advised the company that the male loom technicians were unwilling to work alongside the female operators on classified defence contracts in future. The reason given was that the female operators were considered to be irresponsible and were more of a ‘security-risk’ that the service-trained loom technicians. Management were swift to point out that none of the female operators possessed any expertise in engineering or electronic systems and, in fact, three of the female operators were close relatives of different loom technicians.

Output in the loom workshop fell during April and May 2024 and the company began to fall behind on outstanding defence contracts.

Leadership

Incidences of poor leadership also became evident during the implementation of the new helicopter loom-assembly method, particularly under the autocratic and task-based leadership of the Operations Director, John Dube. Dube’s leadership style was characterised by unilateral decision-making and a focus on meeting production targets at all costs. Empathy, effective communication skills, and emotional intelligence, are skills which Dube clearly lacked. For instance, he mandated the transition to the new assembly method without consulting the loom technicians or their union representatives, instead informing them through impersonal briefing procedures.

Additionally, while Dube’s autocratic and task-oriented style might be effective in highly structured and clear-cut situations, it was ill-suited for the dynamic and uncertain environment presented by the new assembly method implementation. Dube’s poor leader-member relations, characterised by his lack of empathy and poor communication, undermined his ability to effectively manage the team.

Dube insisted on the immediate start of the pilot project, dismissing concerns about the readiness of the workforce and the reliability of the new technology, showcasing a lack of emotional intelligence and self-confidence in addressing legitimate concerns. He enforced strict adherence to the new procedures, reprimanding any loom technician who voiced objections or pointed out potential flaws. Additionally, Dube’s approach to the female operators was highly rigid; he refused to address their grievances about harassment or equipment malfunctions, focusing solely on productivity metrics. This autocratic leadership style not only alienated the experienced loom technicians but also created a hostile work environment, leading to a drop in morale and a subsequent decline in productivity, thereby compromising the company’s operational efficiency and contractual commitments.

(Source: Adapted from Mullins, L.J. (2007) Management and Organisational Behaviour. London: Pearson Education.)

QUESTION 1 (25 Marks)
“Groups in organisations are sources of powerful forces that need to be managed because they can be both constructive and destructive” (Xenikou and Furnham, 2017).
Critically discuss the extent to which groups at Hovertec had a constructive and/ordestructive impact on the organisation.

QUESTION 2 (25 Marks)
Critically analyse John Dube’s leadership from the perspective of trait theory and the perspective of contingency theory.

QUESTION 3 (25 Marks)
“Organisations must change to survive. There are many approaches to influence change; these differences require change managers to consider various strategies that increase acceptance and reduce barriers” (Phillips and Klein, 2022).
Critically evaluate the extent to which change was effectively managed within Hovertec.

QUESTION 4 (25 Marks)
“Out of the many management theories that have developed over time, some parts of each theory have survived and have been incorporated into contemporary theories of management. Managers should know the different management theories so that they are able to select the best approaches when needed” (Botha, 2020).
Critically discuss the extent to which various managment theories are evident in the case study.

Answers to Above Case Study Questions

Answer 1: Groupism is a major activity that is evident across the majority of organisations worldwide and it is important to have good leadership practices in order to manage the adverse impact from groupism. In the given case scenario of Hovertec, the group dynamics as prevalent have a direct level of constructive as well as destructive impact on the performance of employees within the organisation. The constructive impact is identified in the form of..