Introduction

With the airline industry in the USA hardlymaking financial records, how has it beenpossible for a small company such as South-west Airlines to completely satisfy their cus-tomers since 1971? (Bovier, 1993). Whatlessons has the management of SouthwestAirlines learned in such a relatively short timeperiod? How have these lessons enabled thecompany to capture such a portion of themarket? (Bovier, 1993; George and Jones,1996)

Southwest Airlines began its service in1971. Since then the killer-whale paintedplanes have become familiar to their cus-tomers and to corporate America. Besidesbeing profitable, expanding constantly anddefending its high place on the Fortune 500list, Southwest has a very special trait: attitude(Bovier, 1993). The Southwest perspectivestems from CEO Herb Kelleher and South-west’s employee motivation.

The purpose of this article is to discoverthe sources of success of Southwest Airlines asa company with high employee motivation.Three factors will be addressed: (1) Southwest as an “excellent” company;(2) the source of employee motivation in this

“excellent” company; and (3) whether lessons learned can adequately

address potential future problems forSouthwest.

Southwest – the “excellent” company

In Peters and Waterman’s In Search ofExcellence (1982), the authors summarize theresults of their study of “excellent” compa-nies. Forty-three US companies, taken fromthe Fortune 500 list “had to be of above-aver-age growth and financial return over a 20-yearperiod, plus have a reputation in their busi-ness sector for continuous innovation inresponse to changing markets” (Pugh andHickson, 1997, p. 99). The authors thenapplied the McKinsey 7-s framework to theselected companies. The 7-s frameworkdescribes the seven variables “that any intelli-gent approach to organizing had to encom-pass” (Peters and Waterman, 1982, pp. 9-10):structure, strategy, systems, style skills, sharedvalues, and staff. Peters and Watermanexpanded this list of excellence to includeeight attributes:

163

Managing Service QualityVolume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · pp. 163-169© MCB University Press · ISSN 0960-4529

The authorsUlla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes are based at theUniversity of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA.

AbstractIn an era in which adapting to change means survival, it isimportant to study what successful organizations havedone. While the airline industry in the USA has not madethriving financial headlines, one small company has beenable to satisfy its customers completely and achieve aplace among the Fortune 500 in a relatively short period oftime. In three steps, this article examines what SouthwestAirlines has done to reach this level of achievement andmaintain its excellent employee and customer relations.First, the company is defined as “excellent” according tothe criteria established by Peters and Waterman. Second,management-employee relations, organizational trainingand strong leadership are identified as the sources ofemployee motivation. Third, loss of strong leadership andorganizational structure are discussed as possible futureproblems influencing motivation and service. The articlecloses by pointing to Southwest Airline’s concept of serviceas the true source of motivation and excellence.

Case studiesLearning excellence:Southwest Airlines’approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

(1) a bias for action; (2) close to the customer; (3) autonomy and entrepreneurship; (4) productivity through people; (5) hands-on, value-driven; (6) stick to the knitting; (7) simple form, lean staff; and(8) simultaneous loose-tight properties.

Since in 1982 Southwest Airlines had onlybeen operating for 11 years, it was not includ-ed in Peters and Waterman’s study. Yet, ifcarefully examined, Southwest can be labeleda successful learning organization in the lightof Peters and Waterman’s 1982 criteria.

A bias for actionA company showing a bias for action favorsexperimentation. Management encourages“can do” and “let’s try” problem solutions(Pugh and Hickson, 1997, p. 100). Open-door policies and short deadlines are alsotypical. In general, companies with a bias foraction are open for change and new innova-tions.

At Southwest, open-door policies and“let’s try” approaches are part of the specialSouthwest perspective. Kelleher has beenclassified as the sort of manager who will “stayout with a mechanic in some bar until fouro’clock in the morning to find out what isgoing on. Then he will fix whatever is wrong”(Labich, 1994, p. 46). Employees are encour-aged to generate ideas and then try them.“Southwest workers often go out of their wayto amuse, surprise, or somehow entertainpassengers” (Labich, 1994, p. 50). For exam-ple, employees may explain the usual safetyregulations through rap-singing (compareChakravarty, 1991, p. 50 and McNerney,1996, p. 5). Employees often generate andimplement solutions to problems on the spotinstead of waiting for time-consuming topmanagement decisions.

Close to the customerCloseness to the customer implies communi-cating and treating them as valued clients, notas a valued wallet. Southwest maintains veryclose ties to the customer. Suggestions aretaken seriously. Even letters to the companyare answered personally, not according to astandardized formula. Kelleher believes thattaking customers’ letters seriously helpsSouthwest in two ways. First, the letters helpKelleher as CEO to monitor employee perfor-

mance. Second, input from the customersreveals areas in which Southwest can improve(Bovier, 1993).

Typically, the company receives approxi-mately 1,000 letters weekly. Each customerwho writes gets a personal response – not aform letter – within four weeks. Explainingwhy a plane was late can require rattling on forseven pages. While this is time-consuming,requiring more than 1,500 labor hours perweek from 45 employees in two departments,Kelleher believes that the letters are the bestsystem he has found to monitor airline perfor-mance (Teitelbaum, 1992, p. 115).

Southwest’s personal interest in the cus-tomer even goes so far as to reschedule com-muter flights if the flight schedules interferewith the schedules of frequent fliers.

Autonomy and entrepreneurshipCompanies encouraging autonomy and entre-preneurship are characterized by innovatorsand risk takers on all levels. Internal competi-tion is encouraged, not suppressed, and man-agement fosters leaders on all levels (comparePugh and Hickson, 1997, p. 101).

“Southwest is a company that encouragesits people to express their individuality. . .Southwest’s culture also de-emphasizes hier-archy” (McNerney, 1996, p. 5). At South-west, every employee can express opinionsfreely and make suggestions. For example,Southwest encourages leadership. As Jaffeexplains: “We want everyone to be a leader inhis job; you’re a leader not just in what yousay, but in the way you listen and respond toothers, in what you do, and most importantly,how you do it” (Jaffe, 1991, p. 59). Internalcompetition at Southwest exists in a friendlyand motivating way. “Departments showerone another with free ice cream, pizza, orother goodies as tokens of customer devotion– or simple in appreciation of a job well done”(Teitelbaum, 1992, p. 116).

Southwest also accepts failure as a naturaland forgivable occurrence. “A specialattribute of the success-oriented, positive, andinnovating environment is a substantial toler-ance for failure” (Peters and Waterman, 1982,p. 223). Anne Bruce, manager of SouthwestAirlines’ University for People employeelearning and development division, explainsSouthwest’s rules for successful corporations.Among these rules (Bruce, 1997, p. 11) are:walk a mile in someone else’s shoes; take

164

Learning excellence: Southwest Airlines’ approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

Managing Service Quality

Volume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · 163–169

accountability and ownership, and celebrateyour mistakes as well as your triumphs.

Productivity through people“Excellent” companies are people oriented,and productivity through people underlinesthis notion. Companies recognize “ordinarymembers of the organization as the basicsource of quality and productivity gains. . .andthey treat workers as people” (Pugh andHickson, 1997, p. 101).

Southwest employees share similar person-ality characteristics, such as a sense of humorand an outgoing attitude. In contrast to othermajor companies, “Southwest...doesn’t usepersonality tests” (Sunoo, 1995, p. 68). Nev-ertheless, the company hires on the basis ofattitude. “If you don’t have a good attitude,we don’t want you, no matter how skilled youare. We can change skill level through train-ing. We can’t change attitude”(Chakravarty,1991, p. 51).

This policy exists for a reason. Kelleherbelieves that it is easier to treat customers withrespect when treating one another the sameway (compare Teitelbaum, 1992, p. 115). “Ifyou don’t treat your own people well, theywon’t treat other people well”(Teitelbaum,1992, p. 116). Vice president Colleen Barrettstates: “We will never jump on employees forleaning too far toward the customer, but wecome down on them hard for not usingcommon sense” (Teitelbaum, 1992, p. 115).In treating its employees well, Southwestexpects the same behavior towards the cus-tomer. As proof of its success, Southwest hasearned a reputation as one of the friendliestairlines (Bovier, 1993).

Hands-on, value drivenThe hands-on approach describes companiesin which management becomes activelyinvolved. In addition to directing work, repre-sentatives of upper management participate inlower level work because of a belief of equalityand to “publicly demonstrate their commit-ment to high standards” (Pugh and Hickson,1997, p. 102) through their own work.

Southwest’s upper management performone day each quarter as reservation agents,ticket agents, baggage handlers, etc., in orderto “maintain a feel for what’s going on in thefield and understand the difficulty of thesejobs” (Bovier, 1993, p. 58). Even pilots some-times help check in customers or clean air-planes to shorten turn-around times.

Stick to the knitting“Stick to the knitting” is a metaphor thatimplies keeping focused on well-performedtasks and keeping off over-hastened expan-sion. Many companies expand too fast andthen cannot deal with upcoming problemssuch as insufficient funds or lack of special-ized expertise.

Southwest’s CEO Kelleher is cautiousabout expansion. Even though he has addedmany national flights, Southwest is not plan-ning to compete with international airlines.“We don’t intend to fly transcon” (Velocci,1995, p. 41). Since most companies try toincrease profit through expansion, keeping acompany small and focused can be a newconcept. Or, as Kelleher says, “You can inno-vate by not doing anything, if it’s a consciousdecision” (Jaffe, 1991, p. 58).

Simple form, lean staffKeeping an organizational staff lean simplifieschannels of communication in an organiza-tion. The more layers of hierarchy that exist,the longer it takes to make a decision, and theless familiar management is with daily occur-rences. Since its establishment, Southwest hasbeen leanly staffed (Chakravarty, 1991). Forexample, in order to save time and money,flight attendants clean the planes themselvesinstead of ordering in a cleaning crew.

Southwest constantly hires and rarely laysoff new people (McNerney, 1996), so theterm “lean staff” has to be defined in a rela-tive sense. While other airlines hire in proper-ous times and fire in more difficult times, thenumber of Southwest Airlines’ employeescontinues to grow but only to meet theirneeds. In this way, the company preserves itssimple form with limited staff, even whengrowing from 198 to over 11,000 peoplebetween 1971 and 1993 (Bovier, 1993, p. 58).

Simultaneous loose-tight propertiesSimultaneous loose-tight properties can beachieved through a company “both central-ized and de-centralized. . .They are fanaticalcentralists around the few core values they seeas key to the enterprise: quality, reliability,action, regular informal communication, andquick feedback” (Pugh and Hickson, 1997, p.103). Southwest can be described by all thesecharacteristics.

The organization as a whole is democratic.Individual input is encouraged and hierarchyin general is de-emphasized (McNerney,

165

Learning excellence: Southwest Airlines’ approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

Managing Service Quality

Volume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · 163–169

1996). At the same time, Kelleher remains theunchallenged leader of Southwest. Kelleherpersonally approves every expenditure over$1,000 (Labich, 1994) and considers havingfinancial aspects under control as very impor-tant. “No matter how good things may look,you should not let your spending get out ofcontrol” (Chakravarty, 1991, p. 48). Despitehis tight reign on financial aspects, “UncleHerb” or “Herbie,” as he is called by mostemployees (Kelly, 1989, p. 55), is highlyrespected and liked among Southwestemployees.

“Excellent” companies are motivatingAs the preceding discussion shows, Southwestfulfills all eight attributes of an “excellent”company as defined by Peters and Waterman.Most “excellent” companies also have astrong leader. In Southwest’s case, this isHerb Kelleher. Therefore, Southwest Airlinescan be classified as an “excellent” company.

Being employed by Southwest alone ismotivating. “Southwest Airlines. . .puts a highpriority on selecting motivated people tobegin with” (McNerney, 1996, p. 4). Yet,there are other factors especially motivating atSouthwest. Three of these factors will bediscussed here: management-employee rela-tions, training at the University for People,and Kelleher as a strong leader.

Management-employee relationsFirst, Southwest’s organizational culture ischaracterized by good employee-managementrelations. “The old-fashioned bond of loyaltybetween employees and company may havevanished elsewhere in corporate America, butit is stronger than ever at Southwest” (Labich,1994, p. 46). Southwest employees on alllevels think of the company as a family(Labich, 1994). They feel personallyinvolved, responsible, and motivated. DavidRidley, director of marketing and sales atSouthwest, commented that he had come toappreciate “a place where kindness andhuman spirit are nurtured” (Labich, 1994, p.50). Alan Boyd, retired chairman of AirbusNorth America, observed, “At other places,managers say that people are their mostimportant resource, but nobody acts on it. AtSouthwest, they have never lost sight of thefact” (Labich, 1994, p. 50). Almost 30 yearsago Herzberg already concluded that “theonly way to motivate the employee is to give

him challenging work in which he can assumeresponsibility” (Herzberg, 1968, p. 53).

Training at the University for PeopleA second means that Southwest uses to moti-vate employees is the company’s University ofthe People. “The airline’s corporate universitytrains 25,000 people per year” (Bruce, 1997,p. 11). Every new employee undergoes astandardized training session. In addition,every year supervisors, managers and execu-tives have to undergo a two-day training at thecompany’s headquarters in Dallas. Thistraining curriculum includes the FrontlineLeadership program for all employees insupervisory positions. The Leading withIntegrity Program trains first-time managers;the Customer-Care Training Programinstructs flight attendants, pilots and others asto the company’s most current performancestandards (Sunoo, 1995).

Southwest uses training as an importantmotivation tool. Employees are re-familiar-ized with the company’s culture, missionstatement, and corporate identity. Regulartraining prevents mistakes on the job, andnew contacts are made. Because employeesperceive that they are respected, valued, andinformed at all times, they tend to be moreinvolved in the company and are more highlymotivated. This, in turn, usually leads tohigher performance.

Additionally, regular training for allemployees tends to decrease hierarchicalthinking. Consequently, when space shuttlepilot Gibson transferred to Southwest Air-lines, he took “Southwest’s six-week pilotcourse and may [have ended] up doing thescut work that low-cost-airline pilots occa-sionally must, such as loading bags and clean-ing out cabins” (Graham, 1996, p. 8)

Strong leader KelleherA third motivator at Southwest is CEO Kelle-her himself. He is respected by his employeesand knows several thousand of them by name.In addition, Kelleher’s direct involvement hasresulted in many of the company’s successes.“None of the airline’s achievements would bepossible without its unusually good labor-management relations, a direct result ofKelleher’s hands-on efforts” (Labich, 1994, p.47).

Humor comes naturally to Kelleher, andhe is responsible for bringing it into the work-place at Southwest (Chakravarty, 1991).

166

Learning excellence: Southwest Airlines’ approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

Managing Service Quality

Volume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · 163–169

167

Learning excellence: Southwest Airlines’ approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

Managing Service Quality

Volume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · 163–169

Occasionally, he dresses up in costumes andserves peanuts with the flight-attendants. Heencourages fun because he believes that itstimulates productivity.

Kelleher denies that his existence is a vitalpart of Southwest Airlines. Others disagree.“Nobody inside the company, or outside forthat matter, could likely fill the many roles heplays for his employees – inspirational leader,kindly uncle, cheerleader, clown.” (Labich,1994, p. 52).

In conclusion, while “no single theoryadequately explains all human motivation”(McNerney, 1996, p. 1), the factors used bySouthwest Airlines discussed above certainlyheighten the chances of having motivatedemployees. Instead of demanding that they dosomething for the company, Southwest Air-lines seems to be concerned with what thecompany can do for them and for its cus-tomers. With Southwest, it is almost as if themission statement reads, “Ask not what youremployees can do for you, but what you cando for your employees”.

Possible future problems at Southwest

Southwest is praised for its good manage-ment. Despite excellent management, thecompany still is vulnerable to organizationalproblems. Two possible sources of motiva-tional problems could be the loss of strongleadership and organizational structure.

Loss of the strong leaderWhile Kelleher was one of Southwest Airlines’founders, it was not until 1978 that he wasnamed chairman. In 1981 he took over theCEO’s job (Kelly, 1989). Kelleher can becharacterized as a charismatic leader (Weber,1947). Half a century ago Weber identifiedpotential problems of companies evolvingaround charismatic leaders. One of the fore-most problems involves the leader’s successor(Pugh and Hickson, 1997).

There will be a point at which Kelleher hasto resign due to declining health. Companyobservers do not believe that a second Kelle-her can be found (Labich, 1994). Nonethe-less, Kelleher himself is convinced that thecompany will thrive without him. Clearly, heis not concerned so much with a replacement,but with a footstep follower:

I’ve been through this myself. When Lamar[Muse, Southwest’s chief executive from 1971to 1978] left, a lot of people said Southwest

Airlines is over, its kaput, because Lamar Museis Southwest Airlines. Well, Lamar left in 1978and Southwest is still here in 1991 [and 1997],and doing very well. Right now we have three orfour people at a level where they could be chiefexecutive of Southwest very successfully, andwe’ve got others below them (Chakravarty,1991, p. 51).

However, Kelleher might oversee an impor-tant aspect. Even though some other man-agers might be able to run the company effec-tively, Kelleher as a person will be impossibleto replace. Southwest’s employee motivation,to a large degree, derives from his personalityand motivating behavior (Labich, 1994, p.47). Having fun at Southwest might not be soexciting when it becomes a motivation strate-gy instead of radiating naturally from the mostimportant man in the company. While South-west Airlines as an organization might at firstcontinue to thrive, employee motivation maydecrease after Kelleher’s departure.

In the long term, Southwest mightencounter similar performance-reducingmotivation problems as most other aircraftcarriers. “Leaders play a key role in maintain-ing and transmitting the culture. . .The key toleadership is managing cultural change”(Pugh and Hickson, 1997, p. 151). Afterleaving the company, the leader Kelleher willno longer be able to transmit culture andmanage cultural change. He will have becomethe cultural change.

Organizational structureDuring the discussion of Peters’ and Water-man’s eight “excellent” attributes, SouthwestAirlines was described as a de-centralizedcompany with simultaneous loose-tight prop-erties and a strong leader. Southwest also is anexample of Handy’s federal organization,resulting from the shamrock organizationshown in Figure 1. There are certain prob-lems that could result from this structure.

Handy characterizes the ways in whichpeople are linked to modern organizations byusing the Irish national emblem, the sham-rock. “The shamrock organization has threeparts, comparable to the three leaves theclover-like shamrock has on each stem” (Pughand Hickson, 1997, p. 36). These three partsinclude: the professional core with a few, welltrained employees situated in the democraticAthena task culture; the contractual fringethat describes how parts of the work are doneby contractors, with employees being paid for

the output, not for the input; and the flexiblelabor force that is situated in a structured roleculture with a strong leader.

The federal organization that results fromthe shamrock organization is more thandecentralized. It has a small center and isguided by two key principles. The first issubsidiarity, the principle that the larger andhigher body should not exercise functions thatcan be carried out efficiently by smaller andless bodies” (Pugh and Hickson, 1997, pp.37-38). Self-responsibility and leadership onall levels are key characteristics of Southwest’sculture.

The second principle refers to organiza-tional members’ desire to increase the scopeof activities of their roles in the subsidiarities.Handy uses the analogy of the inverted

doughnut to focus on the changing nature oforganizational roles (Pugh and Hickson,1997). Southwest employees and managerstake over new roles and tasks wheneverneeded.

The primary motivational problem likelyresulting from this organizational structure isinternal competition. Other possible organi-zational problems include chaos, lengthydecision making, and loss of a sense of reality.

Internal competition may appear at first tobe very motivating. Handy notes that itrequires managers’ trust to let the subordi-nates act independently. At Southwest,departments and employees monitor eachother’s performance and even reward qualityperformance (Teitelbaum, 1992). As anorganization becomes larger, it becomes moredifficult to achieve both excellent perfor-mance and innovation. Kelleher is aware ofthis problem and tries to counteract, “Thebigger we get, the smaller I want our employ-ees to think and act” (Teitelbaum, 1992, p.115). Nevertheless, an organization with over11,000 employees (Bovier, 1993) is no longera small organization. Friendly competitioncan easily turn into rivalry. At that point, thecompany will suffer, because performanceincreases only a certain point from increasedconflict (George and Jones, 1996).

Conclusion: application of lessonslearned?

The preceding pages have discussed South-west Airlines. First, the company was ana-lyzed according to the eight attributes of“excellent” companies, as defined by Petersand Waterman (1982). Southwest representsall eight attributes and, therefore, can becalled an “excellent” company.

Second, this acticle discussed manage-ment-employee relations, corporate trainingand charismatic leadership as motivationsources at Southwest. Third, two possiblefuture problems influencing employee moti-vation were anticipated for Southwest. Loss ofthe strong leader and the organizational struc-ture could both lead to motivation and perfor-mance decline, especially when occurringconcurrently with other, externally originat-ing problems.

Throughout this article, the discussion hasfocused on attitude at Southwest and howattitude has made a difference in creatingmotivation and attaining excellence. The

168

Learning excellence: Southwest Airlines’ approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

Managing Service Quality

Volume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · 163–169

Professional Core• qualified professionals,

technicians, managers• they own the organizational

knowledge; hard to replace• task culture• number of employees goes down

(small core), but productivityand pay increase

Flexible Labor Force• part-time and temporary

workers (fast growing)• role culture• employees’ treatment

influences their output

Contractual Fringe• takes on increasingly larger

proportion of work• example: advertising,

research, computing, catering are done outside the organization by agencies

• pay for output, not for input

Federal Organization• results from shamrock organization• more than decentralized organization• small center, no direct control over other

parts; ex.: university• two key principles:1.Subsidiarity

-don’t do it yourself if a subordinate could do it-requires trust

2.Inverted Doughnut-subordinates must increase range of activities-little guidance is provided

• traditional organization: Apollo role culture with large core and small area of discretion

• federal organization: Athena task culture with small core and large area of discretion

leads to

Source: Pugh and Hickson, 1997

Graphics: Ulla K. Bunz

Figure 1 The shamrock organization describes the way people are linked tomodern organizations. Information from Pugh and Hickson (1997). Graphicalarrangement by Ulla K. Bunz

literature is not unanimous about the origin ofthis attitude, or about what characteristicspecifically makes Southwest special. Kelleherthinks Southwest’s being special stems fromthe employees’ approach toward the companyand the resulting organizational metaphor,“The people who work here don’t think ofSouthwest as a business. They think of it as acrusade” (Teitelbaum, 1992, p. 116). Otherscredit the corporate culture (Sunoo, 1995),Kelleher’s personality and motivation toleadership (Jaffe, 1991), corporate trainingand vision (Bruce, 1997), or “Strong compa-ny culture, job stability, opportunities forgrowth, incentives, compensation” (McNer-ney, 1996, p. 5).

Perhaps the most important lesson that theorganization has learned pertains to creatingand maintaining a more relaxed workingenvironment in which workers enjoy perform-ing their jobs. While the concept of service hasbecome very sterile in the USA, Southwestemployees take their performance seriouslyand are dedicated to service. They allowthemselves and others to make mistakes, to becreative, humorous, empathetic and involved.Southwest employees bring service back towhere it originated, from the human level. Ifthey can remember this important lesson,Southwest Airlines should be able to success-fully confront future problems.

References

Bovier, C. (1993), “Teamwork, the heart of an airline”,Training, June, pp. 53-5, 58.

Bruce, A. (1997), “Southwest: back to the FUNdamen-tals”, HR Focus, March, Vol. 74 No. 3, p. 11.

Chakravarty, S.N. (1991), “Hit ‘em hardest with themostest”, Forbes, September 16, Vol. 148 No. 6, pp.48-51.

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1996), Understanding andManaging Organizational Behavior, Addison-WesleyPublishing Co.

Graham, D. (1996), “From space shots to milk runs”,Business Week, December 30, No. 3508, p. 8.

Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivateemployees?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46, pp.53-62.

Jaffe, C.A. (1991), “Moving fast by standing still”, Nation’sBusiness, October, Vol. 79 No. 10, pp. 57-9.

Kelly, K. (1989), “Southwest Airlines: flying high with‘Uncle Herb’”, Business Week, July 3, No. 3113, pp.53-5.

Labich, K. (1994), “Is Herb Kelleher America’s best CEO?”,Fortune, May 2, Vol. 129 No. 9, pp. 44-50.

McNerney, D.J. (1996), “Employee motivation: creating amotivated workforce”, HR Focus, Vol. 73 No. 8, pp. 1, 4-6.

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search ofExcellence: Lessons from America’s Best RunCompanies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Pugh, D.S. and Hickson, D.J. (1997), Writers on Organiza-tions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sunoo, B.P. (1995), “How fun flies at Southwest Airlines”,Personnel Journal, June, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 62-71.

Teitelbaum, R.S. (1992), “Where service flies right: South-west Airlines,” Fortune, August 24, Vol. 126 No. 4,pp. 115-16.

Velocci, A. (1995), “More city pairs await Southwest”,Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 7, Vol.143 No. 6, pp. 40-2.

Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and EconomicOrganization, Free Press.

Further reading

Banks, H. (1994), “A ‘60s industry in a ‘90s economy”,Forbes, May 9, pp. 107-12.

Beddingfield, K.T. and Loftus, M. (1997), “Europeunbound. Bold little airlines have cut the cost oftouring the continent”, US News & World Report,March 31, Vol. 122 No. 12, p. 68-70.

Bryant, A. (1994), “Kiwi seeks new labor ethic, end to Usvs. Them”, New York Times, Thursday, February 24, pp.D-1, D5.

Bryant, A. (1995), “One big happy family no more”,The New York Times, March 22, Vol. 1 No. 5.

Handy, C. (1978), The Gods of Management, SouvenirPress, Pan Books.

McKenna, J.T. (1994), “Southwest, pilots trade stock forsalary cap”,Aviation Week and Space Technology,November 28, Vol. 141 No. 22, p. 32.

N.N. (1991), “`The best (and worst) airlines”, ConsumerReports, July, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 462-9.

N.N. (1994), “Lighten up and treat passengers to somefun”, Aviation Week and Space Technology, March14, Vol. 140 No. 11, p. 130.

N.N. (1997), “Freedom in the air”, The Economist, April 5,Vol. 42 No. 8011, pp. 62-3.

Rothman, A., DeGeorge, G. and Schine, E. (1992), “Theseason of upstart start-ups”, Business Week, August31, No. 3281, pp. 68-9.

Taylor, J.H. (1988), “Risk taker”, Forbes, November 14, Vol.142 No. 11, p. 108.

Zellner, W., Baker, S., Hof, R.D. and Greising, D. (1995),“Go-go goliaths”, Business Week, February 13, No.3411, pp. 64-70.

169

Learning excellence: Southwest Airlines’ approach

Ulla K. Bunz and Jeanne D. Maes

Managing Service Quality

Volume 8 · Number 3 · 1998 · 163–169