Management of Change in Lufthansa Airlines Essay

Management of Change in Lufthansa Airlines - Essay Example Secondly, there must be allocation and mobilisation of resources so that the necessary changes may be executed. According to Beer and Eisenstat (2000, p. 32), it is increasingly becoming very critical for the corporate world to excel at strategic change management so that they could outperform their competitors. This paper then will discuss corporate restructuring and privatisation in Lufthansa Airlines. The Type of Change and Why It Was Introduced Lufthansa was almost going under in 1991 owing to accrued large debts. However, in a span of eight years, the company turned around its fortunes to become a world leader in the aviation industry. In order to turn around its fortunes, the company had to institute radical changes. After instituting changes, which was the first step in the process, more allied changes had to follow so that the future of the company could be assured. The management of the company decided to execute change at four different levels, which were modelled around th e concept of renewal sustenance at four levels. However, after eight years of its turnaround, none of the processes that were started were completed. The most challenging bit was sustaining the progress introduced through change. It has been pointed out by Boxall (1996, p. 66) that most processes of change do not work because of an absence of attitudes geared towards change. It follows then that irrespective of how important or good a change process is, the desired goals are not achieved. Similarly, Beer and Eisenstat (2000, p. 35) are of the opinion that those change programs that do not work are usually based on theories of change that are flawed. In this case, it is important for change management to recognise their limitations in terms of ability to institute changes from the top. Instead, change managers should be involved in the creation of the climate of change that is in tandem with the company’s development goals without relying on any specific solution (Armenakis an d Bedeain, 1999, p. 302; Schuler and Jackson, S. 2001, p. 247). There is usually a difference between execution philosophy of change and process management philosophy. On the one hand, the former is of the assumption that leading change is the primary task in the process of change while, on the other hand, the latter places emphasis on the main task of change as planned implementation (Burnes, 2009, p. 76). The Context in Which Change Took Place During the change process, it becomes apparent that the basis of principles and values are dictated by underlying cultures (Worren, Ruddle and Moore, 1999, p. 279). The conditions that exist in the American companies are different from those of European continent in relation to criteria that are important for change strategies (Theodorakopoulos and Figueira, 2012, p. 863). This is particularly pertinent to HRM (human resource management) because it is involved with contemporary techniques of management, besides primarily dealing with etiquet te and values. There has to be a differentiation between strategies HRM and their role during the change process. It has been noted that HRM is deeply entrenched in the American culture, which counter-runs the prevalent In Europe culture of social responsibility, collectivism and pluralism (Saunders, Mann and Smith, 2008, p. 1110).