We're Not Happy Unless We're Unhappy

Conquering Negativity in the Workplace to Repair Company Culture and Increase Profitability

Joseph N. McDonald, B.A.

Master’s Capstone: Research, Synthesis, and Applications

7.25.2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  2  

 

Abstract Company culture is one of the most important aspects in the quest for profitability and definitely a major influence in the following equation: If employees are happy, customers are happy. If customers are happy they’ll return and spend more money. If customers aren’t happy, they won’t return to spend money and the company will cease to exist. The researcher wanted to investigate if United Airlines’ current internal company communications, employee relations, and company culture could be partly responsible for the decrease in revenue and customer satisfaction. In order to answer the research question, the researcher used in-depth interviews as a data collection method to uncover the respondent’s actual position on the research problem. The researcher analyzed the subjects’ responses for similarities and differences, and also compared them with relevant concepts in the Literature Review to identify, understand, and synthesize the overall patterns in the data. The researcher had three recommendations. First, the company should conduct an internal communications audit to determine why middle management is not responding to the message of employee engagement. Second, an outside consultant should be employed to mediate relations between management and labor. Third, executive management should conduct a ”self-examination” to establish clear transformational leadership and initiate a much needed organizational change.

  3  

Introduction

“Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make yours burn any brighter.” Wilhelm Stekel

Introduction statement Company culture is one of the most important aspects in the quest for profitability and definitely a major influence in the following equation: If employees are happy, customers are happy. If customers are happy they’ll return and spend more money. If customers aren’t happy, they won’t return to spend money and the company will cease to exist. Each year Fortune Magazine publishes a feature on “The 100 Best Places to Work” and the ratings are compiled by employee surveys (Great Place to Work Institute, n.d.). The survey asks questions based on employee engagement, work atmosphere, leadership, internal communication, benefits, and pride in the company. All of these companies are successful not only in making money, but also in making employees happy in their work. Why does this simple formula seem to elude many management teams? And why are some employees unhappy, no matter what the circumstances? The merger of Continental (CO) and United Airlines (UA) in October 2010 is still far from complete. Although in the same business, the two companies had two distinct company cultures. Over the past four years, they still have not blended together to form one cohesive whole. In the first quarter of 2014, every major domestic airline posted a profit and United posted a loss of $642 million. The airline blamed bad weather in their hub stations, but two competitors with the same or similar hubs did not lose money. UA is dead last in every customer service survey, indicating a major issue with employee satisfaction. The researcher worked for Continental Airlines for 26 years and experienced the merger with New York Air, Frontier and People Express in 1987. The researcher is quite familiar with the challenges of administering an airline merger from a management and labor point of view. Starting in 1996, the researcher worked as part of a management turnaround team that brought Continental airlines from the worst airline in every measureable category, to become the best-ranked domestic airline. The researcher is concerned that the company has slipped back into the “worst” category. Purpose of the study The researcher wanted to investigate if United Airlines’ current internal company communications, employee relations, and company culture could be partly responsible for the decrease in revenue and customer satisfaction. He found that various work groups continue to be separate in their functions and work contracts, indicating a trend towards a culture of individual needs instead of working towards a

  4  

collective goal. This is quite similar to the hostile company environment at Eastern Airlines when it began a downward slide into liquidation in the late 1980’s (Salpukas, 1991). Research problem Management and labor at United seem reticent to change a merged company culture that currently does not foster a positive, cohesive working environment. The company continues to struggle to develop a unified vision and mission. Some employees reported to the researcher they’ve seen the United CEO, Jeff Smisek (formerly the CEO of Continental Airlines) accompanied by bodyguards at corporate headquarters. Management and labor are locked in a continual battle, and the unfortunate aspect is that this culture has become the accepted norm for the company. The researcher’s intention was to raise awareness of the real and perceived problems that all the company stakeholders face, and how to turn the negative culture around. The project title could also be: “Why don’t I trust my co-workers?” By asking this question, both sides can take a deep look into transforming the company culture into one of positive employee engagement. Research question Why does the culture of negativity seem to thrive at United Airlines? How can company culture be changed to increase profitability and conquer the culture of “we’re not happy unless we’re unhappy?” Methodology description To better understand the current company culture, the researcher formulated four questions that focused on employee satisfaction and company culture from several different groups. The questions were asked of current employees and designed to investigate where they saw breakdowns in internal communication, what they thought were the causes of company problems, if they thought company culture was to blame, and where could they see solutions to move forward in a positive way. The responses were linked to the downward trend in customer satisfaction ratings and revenue. The researcher had access to several current UA employees around the nation, from directors, middle managers, airport agents and administrative staff. The researcher used a qualitative data collection method of personal interviews with three current directors of United Airlines. In addition, there were several informal interviews with current and former UA employees from various departments. The researcher also conducted individual interviews with outside sources such as airline analysts and current UA customers.

  5  

Literature Review Introduction Statement In order to answer the research question, the Literature Review focused on the major theme of Leadership to Conquer Negativity in the Workplace. And in particular the topics of how to identify and repair a toxic work environment, how positive organizational behavior and employee empowerment can be used to combat negativity in the workplace, and the effect that detrimental management decisions have on labor relations during a company merger or acquisition. Leadership to Conquer Negativity in the Workplace In his 2008 article, Company on the Couch: Unveiling Toxic Behavior in Dysfunctional Organizations, Alan Goldman used observations from two case studies to illustrate how toxic behavior in the workplace can, in many cases, evolve from a small event to infect an entire team or company if left unchecked (Goldman, 2008, p. 226). Goldman conducted the case studies himself as a hired outside consultant, and assessed the inner workings and culture of the company from every level. The author maintained that toxic behavior causes an organization to become dysfunctional, resulting in “enduring and serious harm” (Goldman, 2008, p. 227). He used the analogy of psychoanalysis to frame his article and figuratively put the company “on the couch” to unveil patterns of toxic behavior. The author proposed that “emotional unintelligence,” along with internal conflicts and anger management issues, can “adversely affect quality, productivity, teams, retention, and bottom lines” (Goldman, 2008, p. 227). He used his concept of “emotional unintelligence” towards employees as evidence that employee engagement is vital to a company’s continued success. The author advised companies to use a preventive strategy towards conquering toxicity (negativity) in the workplace, and understand that toxic behavior is not only inevitable, but can also exist at every level. He concluded that leadership be aware that “toxicity is everybody’s business,” and that “open door, collaborative empowerment approaches” are the key to solving toxicity problems (Goldman, 2008, p. 236). Goldman posited that toxicity is a fact of life and therefore a part of every organization. He compared corporate toxic behavior to that of a cancer invading the human body. Some cancers can infect and spread beyond the point of healing before a person is even aware of their existence. Others can be detected early and treated before they spread. The author found that many managers are confounded as to the origin of toxic behavior, and sometimes don’t recognize that leadership could be the root of the problem. Goldman observed that “toxicity frequently appears ‘off the radar screen’ and may be invisible to all but the most experienced eye” (Goldman, 2008, p. 236). The article advocated a hands-on, proactive, preventative approach to recognizing and treating toxic behavior in the workplace, much as a good oncologist works closely with a patient to develop a course of treatment specific to that

  6  

individual. Goldman suggested that companies employ internal consultants to act as “toxin detectors” and “toxin handlers” to keep toxicity at bay. He advised that external consultants be used only when a backup with expert psychological training was necessary (Goldman, 2008, p. 236). In his research, Goldman found there were very few case studies available to show the intricate process of decision making by upper management in dealing with a toxic environment and/or behavior. He decided to conduct his own case studies, based on two instances when he was engaged as a professional consultant to rectify situations a company identified as unmanageable. In the cases presented, the author identified a pattern of how an initially manageable situation grew out of control due to “lack of readiness, avoidance, resistance, denial and leadership failures” (Goldman, 2008, p. 227). He found that company culture, interpersonal relationships and other factors all played a part in contributing to the “readiness of leadership to heed the warning signals” (Goldman, 2008, p. 227). The first case study involved a technological research and development team at an aerospace firm. (Goldman used pseudonyms for the companies and employees to preserve the anonymity of his clients). The team, a formally stable unit of the organization, had experienced a high number of transfers out in the previous few years, and the company wanted to know why. The team was productive, but upon investigation by a new Human Resources director, a culture of rude, hostile behavior was uncovered. The director interviewed one of the outgoing team members, and learned that two of the leading engineers had a six-year ongoing feud that instigated the negative behavior within the department. The company’s accepted method of dealing with disruptive behavior was to send the offending employees to an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for rehabilitation. This program offered psychological help, with the idea that it would solve the issue and the employee would return to work as a productive member of the team. The EAP solution was not viewed in a favorable light by the team and regarded as a “funny farm” for dissidents. Those employees who were referred to EAP were branded as “psychos” (Goldman, 2008, p. 229). The investigation found that employees perceived the company culture as one where no emotions were allowed. Employees showed a pattern of psychological self-diagnosis towards “troublemakers” that Goldman labeled as “psychobabble” (Goldman, 2008, p. 229). One of the engineers involved in the feud was regarded as a “psycho passive aggressive” by his peers for his emotional outbursts. Because of the company culture, he was skeptical of turning to the EAP and let his hostility fester. The company brought in a new Human Resources director who arranged for the two men to finally meet and discuss their differences. After three sessions, there was a breakthrough. Both men accepted that the original incident was actually a misunderstanding, and apologies were made. Six years of toxic culture were not

  7  

obliterated overnight, however, and many members of the team revealed they had also taken sides and contributed to the hostile environment. Goldman’s analysis of the case cited “emotional unintelligence” on the part of the two engineers, but also placed blame on management for fostering a company culture that “worked hard at avoiding conflict” (Goldman, 2008, p. 230). He also blamed management for being “emotionally negligent” and too reliant on EAP to solve difficult employee issues. In addition, he observed that management did “not have the skill or insight to serve as toxin detectors or handlers,” and did not heed “the early warning signs of toxicity” (Goldman, 2008, p. 230). Finally, the author was concerned that the company culture ignored the psychological “pseudo-diagnoses” by co-workers. He contended that only trained mental health professionals could recognize the warning signs of a true psychological condition, and that this culture contributed to the dysfunction (Goldman, 2008, p. 231). The second case study involved a confrontational employee relationship style by a leading cardiac surgeon. The hospital in the study had recently reorganized their management structure from a “vertical” style to a “horizontal” model. The surgeon was known for having an “outrageous surgical room behavior and uncivil demeanor,” and hospital staff brought grievances against him under the new structure. The surgeon was sent to managerial training, but this resulted in more resentment on both sides, and an even more toxic environment was created. The Human Resources director decided to try a roundtable format to initiate dialogue, but the conversations quickly deteriorated into accusations and name-calling. The HR director diffused the situation somewhat by calling attention to the team’s stellar patient success record. The surgeon capitulated and acknowledged he was difficult to work with. He blamed stress and the fact that a patient’s life was in his hands. The surgeon agreed to go to EAP and was diagnosed with “anger management issues” brought on from his inability to adapt to “a changing organization in flux and upheaval” (Goldman, 2008, p. 234). The working conditions improved and the surgeon continued to work with HR to keep his anger in check. In his analysis of the case, Goldman pointed out there was no investigation into the surgeon’s accusers. The author discovered this group also had histories of disruptive and toxic behavior, well before the organizational restructuring. The atmosphere in the operating room had been toxic and there was a “long list of disturbed communication behavior” (Goldman, 2008, p. 234). The author also discovered that the surgeon considered filing counter charges, but decided not to exacerbate the situation. To Goldman, it was obvious the entire team was complicit in creating a toxic workplace. He also questioned why HR took the side of those filing the grievances against the surgeon, and never even suggested any immediate negotiation at the outset. Although HR eventually resolved the conflict, it was at the expense of one employee instead of shared responsibility.

  8  

In these case studies, Goldman illustrated “how mismanagement of toxic behavior in the workplace only serves to escalate its dysfunctional effects” (Goldman, 2008, p. 235). The author’s recommendation was to train managers to “systematically and strategically approach the inevitability of toxic behavior” (Goldman, 2008, p. 235). He goes on to point out “the need for managers and HR to be prepared to function as internal counselors, coaches, consultants, and facilitators for their employees” (Goldman, 2008, p. 235). He noted a pattern of conflict avoidance and the tendency to rely on outside sources such as EAP to deal with problem employees (Goldman, 2008, p. 235). Finally, he acknowledged it is difficult to determine the different levels of toxicity, and who should be responsible for identifying the origins. But he urged upper management to be aware of the consequences if toxic behavior in the workplace is not identified at the outset or worse yet, ignored. Moreover, in their 2008 article, Using Positivity, Transformational Leadership and Empowerment to Combat Employee Negativity, Avey, Hughes, Norman and Luthans broke new ground with a study on how positive organizational behavior coupled with employee empowerment can be used to combat negativity in the workplace (Avey, et al. 2008). Avey et al. realized that although much attention had been given to the rise in employee stress levels due to longer working hours and increasing demands on workers, the concept of employees’ negative reactions to change in the work environment was largely overlooked (Avey, et al. 2008 p.111). The authors said theirs was the first theoretical model and empirical research to link “transformational leadership, psychological capital, and empowerment with combating employee negativity” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.111). Throughout their research, Avey et al. placed a special emphasis on the role of psychological capital, or “PsyCap” as they refer to it, and its effect on positive organizational behavior (POB). The authors constructed a survey based on PsyCap, which was given to 341 working adults, to test their hypotheses on the causes of employee negativity. The survey results suggested that positive, transformational leaders contribute to employees’ “feeling more empowered and in turn help reduce their cynicism and urges to quit” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.123). The core hypothesis the authors took was that if employees feel empowered, then they tend to be more positive in the workplace. They began to build their theory by using Hackman and Oldman’s definition of empowerment as “a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact” (as cited in Avey, et al. 2008 p.111). In other words, employees feel empowered if they are motivated by meaningful work, confident in their job knowledge, able to make a difference, and recognized for their efforts. Avey et al. then identified positive psychology as “focused on optimal human functioning, and POB and PsyCap are its applications in the workplace” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.112). The authors went on to further define PsyCap as the having confidence (self-efficacy) to succeed at challenging tasks, sustained optimism, perseverance to

  9  

achieve goals, and resiliency in times of adversity (Avey, et al. 2008 p.112). They maintained that individuals with high PsyCap “believe they can make a positive difference in their work” and “bounce back from setbacks” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.112). The article also differentiated efficacy and optimism by saying “while efficacy is the belief individuals have in their ability to be successful in a given task, optimism is the expectation of future success” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.113). The researcher found this observation to be of particular interest to the topic of negativity in the workplace. Employees with a sense of empowerment, i.e. given the tools and support to be successful, usually develop a forward thinking optimism that will benefit the employee and the company. The authors label these optimists as “high hopers.” Research by Peterson and Luthans in 2003 showed that “firms with higher hope employees are more profitable” and “managers with higher hope levels have correspondingly higher performing units” (as cited in Avey, et al. 2008 p.113). These ideas are directly in line with the researcher’s interest. In addition, Avey et al. noted the effect of transformational leadership on employees, stating, “Transformational leaders communicate a collective vision that inspires followers to look beyond their self-interests for the good of the group” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.114). The researcher has had first-hand experience working with a transformational leader, and can attest that this statement is true. Unfortunately, transformational leaders usually only appear in times of crisis, when an organization is at a point of breakdown. An organization that is mired in stagnation may not see or want the change a transformational leader can bring to employee morale and company profitability. The article focused on the areas of cynicism and intention to quit as conduits to employee negativity. One interesting finding by Wanous, Reichers and Austin in 2000 was “that cynicism is spawned in an environment of ineffective leadership and lack of involvement or participation in decision making” (as cited in Avey, et al. 2008 p.113). The authors also noted that the feeling of intention to quit is associated with an employee’s feeling of self-worth or efficacy within the organization (Avey, et al. 2008 p.114). These observations support the authors’ thesis that employees who do not feel empowered or confident will tend towards negativity. The instrument the authors used to test their hypotheses was a PsyCap questionnaire, conducted on a heterogeneous sample of 341 working adults, via an email sent through a large Midwestern University (Avey, et al. 2008 p.117). The average participant was a 38-year-old Caucasian with 13 years of work experience. The survey measured six items, “each with the psychological resource capacities of confidence, hope, optimism and resiliency” (Avey, et al. 2008 p.117). The respondents answered the questions on a scale of 1-6, 1 being “strongly disagree” to 6 being “strongly agree.”

  10  

The hypotheses tested were: H1a. PsyCap is positively related to empowerment. H1b. Transformational Leadership is positively related to empowerment. H2a. PsyCap is negatively related to cynicism. H2b. Empowerment mediates the relationship between PsyCap and cynicism. H3a. Transformational leadership is negatively related to cynicism. H3b. Empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and cynicism. H4a. PsyCap is negatively related to intentions to quit. H4b. Empowerment mediates the relationship between PsyCap and intentions to quit. H5a. Transformational leadership is negatively related to intentions to quit. H5b. Empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and intentions to quit. (Avey, et al. 2008) The results of the survey found varying degrees of support for all of the hypotheses with the exception of H2b and H3b (Avey, et al. 2008). The researcher interpreted those exceptions as indication that empowered employees are positive thinkers, and not so much affected by cynicism and intention to quit exhibited by their co-workers. Pursuing this further in their 2010 article, Merger Repair: A Conceptual Framework for Restoring Employer/Employee Relationships, Timothy Galpin and J. Lee Whittington examined the effects that detrimental management decisions can have on labor relations during a company merger or an acquisition. Galpin and Whittington referred to these types of decisions as “management transgressions” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). The authors observed that in many examples of failed mergers, management was more concerned with the financial synergies than with company culture and/or integrating diverse departments. This fostered an atmosphere of doubt and distrust in management competency by employees, along with a strong resistance to change (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). The article identified several causes of merger and acquisition (M&A) failure, and in each case laid blame for these failures on intentional or unintentional management transgressions. The authors offered a five stage conceptual framework for merger repair, based on seven propositions, as a possible solution to offset damage incurred by management transgressions during a merger or acquisition (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). The authors conceded this was a largely “unaddressed area of intellectual study,” and that “their propositions need to be tested by empirical research”(Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.61, p.62). They concluded by offering that managers who are aware of transgressions could avoid them from the outset and thus “enhance their employees’ trust and commitment” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.63).

  11  

From the outset, Galpin and Whittington observed that many mergers and acquisitions begin with high expectations, rosy predictions for a seamless integration process and reassurances to stakeholders that management has planned for every contingency (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). The authors pointed out that these predictions seldom come to fruition because “management is often out of touch with rank-and-file’s typically lower expectations,” and that “management’s confidence about the ease of synergy achievement is frequently unrealistic” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.48). The authors advocate the view that these transgressions on the part of management are what cause most mergers and acquisitions to fail (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.48). The authors gave many examples of failed mergers to support their view: Chrysler/Daimler, Sprint/Nextel, AOL/Time Warner and Citicorp/Travelers to cite a few. In each of these cases, they noted a pattern of emphasis on the promise of financial rewards for stakeholders, over the establishment of employee trust in management to competently lead the enterprise (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.49). According to the authors, this lack of trust is exacerbated by the fact that employees see “errors in management’s assumptions and decisions during integration (that) are excruciatingly obvious” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.49). The article cited several studies that gave evidence many mergers “fail to live up to performance measures” which raised the question of why they continue to be part of the business landscape (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.50). The authors argued that although based on “good intentions” for the merger’s outcome, management is often challenged with a complex operational and mental environment, constrained by “finite resources such as available time, staff and capital” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.50). Other explanations were the possibility of personal reward and the “herd theory,” the idea that it’s “better to go with the herd than risk failure going it alone” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.50). Mergers and acquisitions fail due to a variety of reasons, but Galpin and Whittington noted different management styles and corporate cultures as the primary causes. The authors stressed the importance of careful pre-planning to avoid management transgressions, whether they are intentional or not. They cited a study of 40 acquisitions that found all of the companies focused on financials only, and neglected the human resources aspect of the merger. Once a merger has reached a critical stage of dysfunction, Galpin and Whittington recommended a process of “merger repair” to address the problems (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.53). Once again, the authors acknowledged the lack of literature on “how to repair employer/employee relationships once the damage of poor integration has been done,” and offered that much useful research comes from social psychology investigations of “violations of trust” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.53). The authors held the position that “trust can be repaired by increasing the trustworthiness dimension – ability, benevolence and integrity – that declined” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.53).

  12  

Dirks, Lewicki, and Zaheer identified “trust, affect, and exchange” as areas that have “significant consequences for the viability of relationships” (as cited in Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.55). The authors used these constructs as a framework for their propositions to identify areas of management transgressions that would lead to merger repair. An example of broken trust, the authors explained, is when management makes a promise that is soon rescinded. “Affect” is when “negative employee emotions” are created when “management communicates one message but takes actions that are contradictory.” “Exchange” is the reciprocity between management and employees, but if employees feel they are being mistreated, the will to cooperate fades (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.56). Galpin and Whittington asserted that in mergers and acquisitions, employees value integrity over competence. The authors noted, “when integrity is violated people may be more likely to perceive the transgressor to lack competence as well” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.56). This observation formed the basis for their fourth proposition: “Management transgressions of integrity will have a more significant impact on employee trust, affect and exchange than transgressions of competence during merger integration” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.58). Building on their propositions, Galpin and Whittington offered a five stage conceptual framework for merger repair: 1. Pre-Transaction – What is the current state of employer/employee trust, affect and exchange? 2. Integration Transgressions – What transgressions have been committed (integrity and/or competence)? 3. Damaged Relationship – Which employer/employee factors (trust, affect, and exchange) have been impacted and to what extent? 4. Merger Repair – What actions can be taken to repair the damaged factors? 5. Post Repair Assessment – What is the state of trust, affect, and exchange after the repair actions are taken? (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.59) The authors’ fifth proposition recommended a “well planned and executed set of merger integration actions” for a positive impact on the factors of employee trust, affect and exchange. In the sixth proposition they went on to say that those factors would have a negative impact in “the presence of merger integration transgressions” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.60). Galpin and Whittington’s, seventh and final proposition posited that the three employee relationship factors would be “positively impacted by a by a well-executed set of merger repair actions” (Galpin & Whittington, 2010 p.60). To test their propositions and conceptual framework for merger repair, Galpin and Whittington suggested that a case study of an actual merger would glean the most data. The authors conceded this was a difficult prospect, as they would have to be privy to the machinations of the merger from the start. But they hoped their analysis

  13  

would be beneficial to future merger management teams when planning a merger or acquisition. Critique of Leadership to Conquer Negativity in the Workplace Journal Articles In his 2008 article, Company on the Couch: Unveiling Toxic Behavior in Dysfunctional Organizations, Alan Goldman pointed out that even highly trained human resources professionals and executive level managers could sometimes fail to recognize, or misidentify, the roots of toxic behavior. Goldman showed that left unchecked, ignored, or mishandled, toxic (or negative) attitudes in the workplace would not only affect employee morale, but also have a major detrimental impact on profits, productivity, and quality of work. Though his case studies, the author explained how a toxic environment could become so ingrained in a company’s culture that it becomes accepted as the norm. This researcher found that Goldman’s observations could easily be compared to the situation at United Airlines. UA is a company where internal competition, complex layers of communication, and rigid hierarchy contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust and disrespect of co-workers. The researcher concluded that, for some unknown reason, the idea of creating and maintaining a “happy” company environment and culture is not universally shared. Many corporate leaders and managers are still only interested in getting a job done, no matter the emotional cost. Also, many employees seem to thrive on perpetuating a negative attitude, regardless of the toll it takes on their co-workers, superiors, or the fortunes of the company. Goldman provided a snapshot of this behavior through his case studies and offered some viable solutions. First, help managers to understand that toxic behavior exists at every level and to expect that it will occur in every situation. Second, train managers to recognize toxic behavior and/or situations at the outset. Third, provide managers with the tools and support to strategically offset the effects of toxic behavior at a local level and use outside resources only when necessary. The researcher felt that Goldman’s solutions could be used to help turn around the negative culture at United Airlines. Management could begin to be aware of the need for “emotional intelligence” in dealing with employee issues in the workplace. This attitude could start to rebuild the trust between co-workers and bring the company back to a positive working environment Moreover, in their 2008 article, “Using Positivity, Transformational Leadership and Empowerment to Combat Employee Negativity,” Avey, Hughes, Norman and Luthans used the constructs of cynicism and intentions to quit as examples of employee negativity. The researcher found that the article supported the main theme of this study, to combat workplace negativity with positive, transformational leadership and employee engagement through empowerment. The authors’ empirical evidence, in the form of their survey, validates the simple key concept the

  14  

researcher set forth in this study: That a positive thinking, engaged workforce will be not only be productive, but also contribute to continued profitability. As noted previously, the equation that Avey et al. presented to combat negativity in the workforce required transformational leadership to succeed. The other two concepts of positivity and employee empowerment rarely exist in the business world, without a clearly defined vision and mission for the organization communicated via a transformational leader. In the researcher’s experience, there have always been positive and negative employees in every workplace. Also, some employees have been courageous enough to feel empowered to make decisions, out of their purview, to benefit the company and the customer. Without the support of a positive company culture however, negative attitudes usually prevail. Following this further, in their 2010 article “Merger Repair: A Conceptual Framework for Restoring Employer/Employee Relationships,” Timothy Galpin and J. Lee Whittington presented a detailed analysis of the myriad problems encountered during a merger and presented some viable solutions. As part of a management team during two mergers, the researcher has found that upper level awareness of the three constructs of employee trust, affect, and exchange is a critical, but often overlooked, piece of the merger process. As the authors observed, management is all too often most concerned with the financial aspects first and the human aspects second, if at all. Like the authors, the researcher found it startling that management continues to make the same mistakes in misjudging or failing to predict employee reactions prior to or during a merger. In the case of United Airlines, the researcher found the authors’ “herd theory” analysis to be relevant. In the researcher’s opinion, the United/Continental merger was done under these circumstances. In the fear of being “left behind” in airline consolidation, Continental Airlines, a relatively stable and well-respected company, rushed to merge with a company in turmoil, from which it still has not recovered four years later. Conclusion Statement The researcher found that this brief Literature Review brought several aspects of the research question into sharper focus. By identifying the causes of and management response to toxic behavior in the workplace, the effect of employee empowerment with the guidance of transformational leadership on profitability, and the importance of recognizing the human element within the merger process, the researcher was able to formulate relevant questions for the data collection process. Together, the articles clarified the theme of Leadership to Conquer Negativity in the Workplace by placing much of the responsibility for employee satisfaction and engagement on effective upper level management.

  15  

Methodology Introduction statement In order to answer the research question, the researcher used in-depth interviews as a data collection method to uncover the respondent’s actual position on the research problem. According to Ghauri & Grønhaug in their book Research Methods in Business Studies, the in-depth interview method is useful “in the case of complicated or sensitive issues” and “highly suitable for exploratory and inductive types of study” (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010, p. 126). Due to the sensitive nature of the research problem, the researcher expected to encounter some defensiveness and hesitancy on the part of the subjects when answering questions. Subjects As a former employee of Continental Airlines, the researcher had access to several trusted sources within the company. The subjects listed below have over 70 years combined experience in aviation management and customer service. In addition, the researcher sought input from various other current and former United Airlines employees to develop an objective perspective of the research problem. Subject 1. A current director level manager at United Airlines Subject 2. A current director level manager at United Airlines Subject 3. A current mid-level manager at United Airlines Instrument The researcher chose the in-depth interview method to investigate if the respondents could provide two answers to the research problem. First, is the company culture in stagnation and preventing growth? Second, what actions would you personally recommend to conquer negativity in the workplace? The researcher constructed the questions to encourage respondents to identify specific obstacles to growth and share their own ideas and solutions to reverse the negative trend. Each session was limited to a maximum 60 minutes. Ghauri & Grønhaug also advised that in-depth interviews “demand a skilled and cautious interviewer” and that the interviewer have “a complete understanding of the research problem” (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010, p. 127). The researcher had decades of aviation management and professional customer service experience in addition to being an accomplished interviewer. The interview method helped put respondents at ease during the interview process, and allowed them to open up to thoughtful responses on sensitive issues. Question 1. Do you think the company culture is one that encourages employee engagement or not? If so, give some examples that are working now. If not, can you identify a root cause as to why a negative company culture exists, and what would you recommend to fix it?

  16  

Question 2. Where do you see bottlenecks in internal communication, and what can be done about them? Question 3. There is obviously an ongoing disconnect between management and unions. Do you think it is because of a lack of trust between the two parties? If so how would you rebuild that trust? If not, what do you think is causing the disconnect? Question 4. Do you think there is a direct correlation between employee engagement and profitability? If not why not, and if so, what do you think management’s role should be to make the company a great place to work? Procedure Confidential in-depth interviews were conducted by telephone. The questions were provided to the subjects in advance. All subjects consented to recording the conversations to ensure accuracy and consistency in timing and results. Conclusion statement The results of the data collection will be tabulated in the Results Section of this project.

  17  

Results Introduction statement The following are the tabulations of the results of the data collection. Instrument results The following is a paraphrase of the subjects’ responses. Question 1. Do you think the company culture is one that encourages employee engagement or not? If so, give some examples that are working now. If not, can you identify a root cause as to why a negative company culture exists, and what would you recommend to fix it? Subject 1.

Although we try to engage employees, it hits a stumbling block at a certain level. When it comes to sharing ideas, management is split amongst themselves. The management hierarchy fosters a culture that does not embrace creative ideas unless they are their own. There is very little trust between employees. Many managers have trouble thinking “outside the box” and are afraid to be held responsible for their decisions. Also, trying to analyze everything has paralyzed the process of moving actual decisions through the pipeline. Taken collectively, these factors create a toxic environment. Although I’m personally in a good working environment with a great boss, I believe the root cause of why the negative culture exists, is because there is a significant amount of management by intimidation. Many mangers from both subsidiaries are still having difficulty with the culture change, in particular the way people advance through the company. Previously, United’s system was one of “climbing the ladder” by working your way through an unspoken hierarchy. You had to be manager of one area before you could move on to another. Each manager was then beholden to the one who hired them, which created different factions within the company. Some of these factions still hold grudges against one another, and some managers are bitter that the merger has upset their career paths. There has been a significant management turnover since the merger and now there are two distinct groups. One is the new crop of MBAs who have just joined the company and want to make money; the other is the old guard who are afraid of losing their jobs. Add this to the fact that no one is proud of our product at the moment, so I think the biggest problem we face is the lack of loyalty and commitment to the company.

  18  

Subject 2. In certain departments and divisions there is some engagement, but in other departments such as mine, no. The contributions an average front-line employee can make tend to be in the area of “How can we serve people better?” The problem is that most every suggestion made includes a cost. As a normal matter of course, anything that includes cost is not a viable solution at the moment. As a result, the employee is told: “Good idea, but we can’t do it.” Since this happens on a regular basis, I think word gets out not to bother making a suggestion. This discourages employees from taking the opportunity to make a difference. The company is on a more cost centric mission than a customer/employee centric mission. That said, we have received several great suggestions on how to cut costs. These types of things seem to get enacted. But sadly, this doesn’t foster an atmosphere that encourages employees to make a contribution. Another issue is the employees whose ideas that were implemented, were never publicly recognized. We never capitalized on bragging rights for employee recognition that would encourage others to contribute new ideas. Therefore, employees have another reason not to offer their input. Because we focus exclusively on costs, employees stop participating in change ideas and it shuts off the faucet of creative argument. I see the root cause of the culture of negativity at United as being fundamentally how you want to run a company. Last year Delta airlines had 75 days where they didn’t cancel a single flight. United had only one day last year where all our flights operated. Obviously it took an investment by Delta in equipment, maintenance, staff, and facilities for an airline of that size to operate all of their flights. United’s focus is on cutting costs and how to run as lean an operation as possible. We are making decisions based on cost, which routinely overrides the needs of our customers.

Subject 3.

I’d like to address this question starting with observations about the major mistakes we made when the two companies merged, because that is what I think has affected the company culture. The company first pitched it as a “merger of equals.” This sounded great at first - they wanted to take the best of both companies and make it the “world’s leading airline.” This backfired completely. Both sides suddenly had to learn each other’s policies and procedures. There was much confusion on which policy we were supposed to follow, so consequently neither side ultimately won over the employees’ trust that management had a clear strategic integration plan. Consequently, we created

  19  

an entire company that had no subject matter experts in organizational policies and procedures. The other mistake that was made in the merger was the relocation of headquarters to Chicago. It was clearly recognized that the company wanted to keep the Continental culture, but we lost more than half of Continental upper management in the move. So the remaining Continental employees were tasked with bringing the company culture to United. This made all the employees unhappy, because the Continental employees couldn’t force the happy culture on a group that was already negative. This created an even more toxic environment than it was before the merger. The decisions made during the merger focused entirely on costs. The route system meshed well and millions would be saved integrating systems, along with tax breaks for the office space in Chicago. What they completely ignored was the culture. They thought they could force the Continental culture on the United employees, but they didn’t realize what actually made that culture. On the surface, the company encourages employee engagement. But once you get to upper management, it’s not a dialogue; it’s more of a one-way conversation. Upper management says: “Turn the company around, this is how you are going to do it, these are the resources you’re going to use, and these are the results that are expected.” This is completely at odds with the rhetoric that is put out to the front line employees. Management at a certain level is inflexible and set on the way they think that things need to be done. There is still a lot of management by intimidation left in the company. The tone in communication is one of totalitarian rule versus a discussion. This seems to be an accepted company practice, which contributes to the negative company culture.

Question 2. Where do you see bottlenecks in internal communication, and what can be done about them? Subject 1.

The biggest problem in communication is that no one wants to be held accountable. Upper management is making decisions that hamper our ability to deliver a good and consistent product. Very few people feel they can speak up frankly to identify problem issues for fear of retaliation or intimidation, so we keep making mistakes and cannot move forward.

  20  

Subject 2.

Our internal communications department focuses almost exclusively on positive customer service stories. When employees access the internal company website or newsletter, the first thing they see is a smiling co-worker being lauded for some great service they have done for a customer. This is nice way to show and model positive behavior. What we aren’t doing is being just as open and expressive in addressing the frustration and challenges that our employees - who are being asked to deliver that great service - face on a day-to-day basis. For example, some questions not covered in internal communications are: “Why do we cancel so many wide-body flights? Why don’t we have enough pilots to operate our flights? And most importantly, why do you always wish to copy Delta Airlines?” If employees could understand the reasons some of these decisions are made, then it’s possible internal company communications would be viewed as a more transparent, balanced source of information. On the cost side, our financial report from 2013 compared our earnings to Delta. United made 1.2 billion, but Delta made a record profit of 10.5 billion. The way this message was presented internally was that our employees were inferior to Delta since Delta made ten times more. This was demoralizing. Why would we communicate the message to our employees that 1.2 billion is not enough? The comparisons to Delta permeate our culture so much that some employees are wearing wristbands that say WWDD. (What would Delta do?) At some point in time, management has to make a decision that we are fundamentally a completely different airline than Delta.

Subject 3.

Executive management needs to understand how their message to mid-level employees is being interpreted and carried out. I would even guess that they probably don’t know. I would like to think that if they did, they would act on bringing the idea of employee engagement to all levels across the board. Right now middle managers are still doing things they way they always did, which is a culture of “perform or get out – failure is not an option,” not one of engagement. If executive management does know about the failure in communication and approves of it, then they are really disconnected from the company culture they are trying to achieve. If they don’t know this is happening, then shame on them. They are allowing a group of middle managers to sabotage the vision of the company for the future.

  21  

Question 3. There is obviously an ongoing disconnect between management and unions. Do you think it is because of a lack of trust between the two parties? If so how would you rebuild that trust? If not, what do you think is causing the disconnect? Subject 1.

I would not say there is a lack of trust between management and unions, but a lack of confidence that problems will be resolved. In our department now, we have a good working relationship with the unions. Unfortunately, I see more of a lack of trust between the different unions themselves. The infighting between the unions is remarkable. They have used negative social media and bullying tactics on their own members to advance causes. Some of these issues are quite petty and unreasonable, so many employees actually view management as being rational compared to the unions internal strife.

Subject 2.

There is a lack of trust at United because there is a long history of management/union discord. Management has done a very poor job of controlling the message on the outcome of union/labor negotiations; the recent furloughing of flight attendants is a good example. The company allows the unions to be the first to communicate their message to employees when there is an important announcement to be made, instead of taking part in explaining the situation from both sides to all parties at the same time. Management is definitely at a communicative disadvantage with the unions. The unions have several avenues of communication they can use, the most powerful being social media. They can shape their message and skew the outcome however they want, often in a negative way. The company cannot compete with this because all we have is our internal website. The distrust is due to a lack of communication in management owning the message.

Subject 3.

What is instilled in the United Airlines unions is an immediate distrust of anyone who represents management. The unions’ supporters and representatives blame management for everything that’s wrong with the company. The odd thing is that the majority of the employees are both anti-union and anti-company. I think one root cause is the union mindset at United that they are strong as long as they keep the employees upset with the company. Also, there is a still some dissent between the former United employees and the former Continental employees in their attitudes towards the union. The Continental employees are upset there is a union at all and the former United employees blame the union for an unfavorable contract with the company.

  22  

I think one of the things that should happen to rebuild trust between the parties would be to issue joint statements when an agreement is reached. At present, when there is some actual good news that a contract has been ratified or something to that effect, the union and the company issue two different statements. Each statement is completely separate in tone and delivery, which unintentionally highlights the differences between the parties. It would show a much more unified message for employees if these announcements were issued jointly.

Question 4. Do you think there is a direct correlation between employee engagement and profitability? If not why not, and if so, what do you think management’s role should be to make the company a great place to work? Subject 1.

I think it’s very positive to have an input on company issues. If you are part of the solution you’re going to buy into it a lot quicker. Employees that are able to put their own stamp on their work will be proud of the result. To make the company a great place to work, management needs to foster an environment where employees are given credit and recognition for new ideas that are successfully implemented. Right now, so much is done in secret and many ideas are stolen outright or misrepresented as another department’s effort. The culture now is one of individual competition and has to change so we all work together as a team.

Subject 2.

Management’s role should be to engage employees across all levels: To openly share ideas on improving product, reducing costs, and increasing profitability. To make this work, we should formalize this process by emphasizing that employee involvement is our most important mission, not make it a little side deal. The people whose ideas are used should then be publically recognized. Right now, the only way an employee can voice their opinion is to find a supervisor and complain, or call the employee hotline and leave a voicemail. What’s missing from the company is “Why do I care?” The employees who do take the time to voice their opinion usually never hear anything back from management. This has created a general apathy that is affecting the company culture.

Subject 3. I thought a lot about this question. In my heart of hearts, I’d like to say unequivocally yes. But seeing how United has been “managed by the sword” for so many years, with people being so unhappy and unfortunately now used to it, I have to say it is possible to make money without an engaged workforce. That said, I doubt very much that this business model is

  23  

sustainable. Eventually, customers will stop coming and we’ll also have a hard time retaining skilled staff.

Ultimately I do believe there is a correlation between employee engagement and profitability. We have tried to address this within our department by focusing on the little things we can fix, instead of emphasizing policies and procedures that we can’t. This idea has started to take hold, and we’ve made some progress towards helping employees understand why their engagement can make a difference in the company’s future.

Conclusion statement The results will be analyzed in the Conclusion Section of this project.

  24  

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Summary of the data collection As noted previously, the researcher had concerns that due to the sensitive nature of the research questions and current state of low company morale, the subjects would be hesitant to share open, honest and objective responses. The researcher was pleased to find out this was not the case. The subjects were engaged, informative, and thoughtful. They were genuinely eager to share their insights on the root causes of negativity at United and offered real solutions to the research problem. The researcher provided the subjects with questions and literature reviews in advance, so they were well prepared to comment on the research problem and stayed on point during the interviews. The order of the questions was designed to have each topic to build upon the previous one, which allowed for a relaxed conversational tone instead of a formal interview. The researcher deemed the in-depth interview method a success, because each of the subjects was surprised when the sessions reached the maximum 60-minute time allotment. Conclusions from the data results The researcher analyzed the subjects’ responses for similarities and differences, and also compared them with relevant concepts in the Literature Review to identify, understand, and synthesize the overall patterns in the data. Question 1. Employee engagement and root causes of negativity All three subjects acknowledged that on the surface there is an effort to engage employees on the front line; however, the idea of open engagement ceased when it reached the level of upper management. Subject 1 elaborated by saying that “management is split amongst themselves,” and that the root cause of the negative company culture is “there is a significant amount of management by intimidation.” Subject 3 reinforced this observation by saying communication at the upper level is “not a dialogue, but more of a one-way conversation.” This is in line with Goldman’s findings that toxic behavior can become so ingrained in a company’s culture that it becomes the norm (Goldman, 2008). Subject 2 went on to suggest the reason for the negative culture is that there seems to be confusion on direction of the company. On one hand United wants to emulate the success of its major competitor Delta, yet the company is relentlessly focused on cutting costs instead of investing in the future. As Galpin and Whittington observed, a frequent management transgression during mergers is the emphasis on financial issues and the dismissal of employee/customer aspects (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). Subjects 1 and 2 both confirmed that cost cutting is the number one focus of the combined company, and that employee engagement is encouraged in theory but not in practice.

  25  

Subject 1 said the biggest problem was a lack of loyalty and commitment, and attributed this to not having a product employees could be proud of. Subject 2 was concerned that management did not recognize employees for their achievements, which contributed to a general sense of apathy. The article by Avey et al. identified both of these issues as the result of management’s neglect of investing in the “psychological capital” of their employees (Avey, et al. 2008). Question 2. Internal communication All three respondents cited upper management’s detachment from the rest of the company as a major deterrent to growth and mutual trust. Subject 1 again brought up the issue of the fear to speak frankly about problems, resulting in a lack of accountability. Subject 2 remarked on internal communications’ focus of always presenting the company through rose-colored glasses, and ignoring or playing down any internal conflict. Subject 3 went so far as to posit that upper management might not even be aware of the actual toxic environment that exists at the middle management level. These observations correlated with Goldman’s concept of “emotional unintelligence,” towards employees as a cause of negative company culture. It also follows Goldman’s analogy of corporate toxicity spreading like a cancer that the patient is unaware of until it’s too late (Goldman, 2008). In addition, Galpin and Whittington added that ineffective integration of different management styles after a merger is a primary cause of merger failure, which accounts for the communication breakdown (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). Question 3. Lack of trust Both Subjects 2 and 3 referred to the history of ingrained distrust between management and labor at United Airlines before the merger, and suggested that relations have only deteriorated since. Subject 1 thought it was more a lack of confidence that the conflict would ever be resolved. All three respondents noted the power the unions have in using social media to manipulate their message, and management’s weak response. The theme of management not “owning the message” was prevalent in each interview. Subjects 2 and 3 went into this in detail and gave examples of how the unions use negative social media. They said the medium allows the unions to skew stories about management/labor agreements, which could have been portrayed as breakthroughs in resolving issues. Subject 1 went on to say that union infighting exacerbated the problem, but broke with Subjects 2 and 3 to say there was a good working relationship with the unions in some specific departments. Subjects 2 and 3 thought a better working relationship between all parties could be established by making joint announcements when a mutual agreement is reached, instead of issuing two different interpretations. The Subjects’ responses to this question hark back to the observation made by Avey et al., regarding the necessity of a collective vision for the company so

  26  

employees could focus beyond their own immediate needs (Avey, et al. 2008). In addition, Galpin and Whittington noted that during a merger, management is usually not closely involved with the expectations of labor, and has an unrealistic confidence that employee integration will be seamless (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). Moreover, management’s weak response to negative social media underlines the situations Goldman found in his case studies, that mismanagement of a toxic workplace only makes it more dysfunctional (Goldman, 2008). Question 4. Employee engagement and profitability There was agreement between Subjects 1 and 2 that employee engagement does have a direct effect on profitability. They were concerned, however, that the current culture of little teamwork and general apathy, if left unchanged, would continue to affect the bottom line for United. They both recommended that employee recognition and open encouragement to share ideas across the board become a major focus for the company. Avey et al. corroborate this assessment with their survey results indicating that positive organizational behavior and employee empowerment can combat negative behavior in the workplace (Avey, et al. 2008). Subject 3 offered an interesting observation, quite relevant to the present state of United Airlines, by speculating it was possible to make money without an engaged workforce since the company posted a profit in 2013. The caveat though, was that this was most likely not a sustainable business model. Eventually, customers would stop coming and the company would not be able to retain a skilled workforce. Recommendations Like the authors of the three articles reviewed for this project, the researcher was surprised to find there is not a great deal of literature available on the subject. A wider selection of empirical studies would have contributed to a more informed investigation of the topic. The study could have also benefited from a larger more diverse employee sample, such as a survey or detailed case study. The researcher did not have the luxury of time to give the research problem an in-depth treatment, but hopes this study will foster further exploration of an important, yet often overlooked, area of organizational management. The researcher had three recommendations. First, the company should conduct an internal communications audit to determine why middle management is not responding to the message of employee engagement. From the Subjects’ answers, this could be identified as the root cause of the toxic company culture. As Goldman found, more complex issues may arise, but if the culture of management by fear and intimidation is stopped, then the company can begin the rebuilding process (Goldman, 2008). Second, an outside consultant should be employed to mediate relations between management and labor. This process should be transparent and, as noted by Galpin and Whittington, focus on rebuilding trust between all parties to start the process of

  27  

merger repair (Galpin & Whittington, 2010). The current culture of ongoing conflict to try and win small battles on each side is not a sustainable business model. Third, executive management should conduct a thorough “self-examination” to establish a clear vision and mission, by way of transformational leadership, and initiate a much-needed organizational change (Goldman, 2008). Management must also take a look at the company as a whole and invest in the “psychological capital” and empowerment of their employees (Avey, et al. 2008). A happy workforce will produce happy customers who will return to spend money. United Airlines is currently a company divided against itself with no clear strategic plan other than to find ways to save money. The company is ripe for change, and the researcher did see some hope from employees that the company could turn around with the right leadership. The researcher believes that if the company culture is not repaired, United will continue to sink in customer satisfaction ratings and eventually be unable to compete as a leading player in the global market. The relentless focus on cost cutting as the prime directive is a self-defeating strategy, and will ultimately erode profits as customers and employees slowly disappear. In other words, death by a thousand cuts.

  28  

References

Avey, J. B., Hughes, L. W., Norman, S. M., & Luthans, K. W. (2008). Using positivity, transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 110-126. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730810852470

Galpin, T., & Whittington, J. L. (2010). Merger repair: A conceptual framework for restoring Employer/Employee relationships. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(1), 48-68. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/807503137?accountid=9940

Ghauri, P. N., & Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Great Place to Work Institute (n.d.). Celebrating Great Workplace Cultures. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from www.greatplacetowork.com/best-companies/100-best-companies-to-work-for

Goldman, A. (2008). Company on the CouchUnveiling Toxic Behavior in Dysfunctional Organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 226-238. doi:10.1177/1056492608318157

Salpukas, A. (1991, January 20). Eastern Airlines Brought Down by a Strike So Bitter It Became a Crusade. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-brought-down-by-a-strike-so-bitter-it-became-a-crusade.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1

  29  

Appendix

In the process of researching this paper, the researcher had several informal conversations with current United Airlines employees. The researcher took heart that many people had some hope that the company would someday turn around, but the general tone of the comments did not bode well for that happening in the near future. The researcher did not use these comments in the analysis for this project, but felt they should be included as a possible basis for future research.

About company culture:

“There’s no company culture, unless you consider dysfunction a culture.”

“You can’t make a good meal out of a hodgepodge recipe.”

“Nothing is cohesive; we’re like Frankenstein’s monster.”

About internal communications:

“When we launched our new computer system, we heard zero negative feedback. How is that possible when we were constantly encountering glitches?”

“There is a positive slant on everything, corporate spin.”

“Communication with management is completely a one-way street. There is no forum that’s accessible, and when you try, no one will listen.”

About management/labor relations:

“We are not encouraged to do anything better. We have no engagement with upper management.”

“Management shuts people down. If something is wrong, it’s immediately your fault.”

“I have no respect for our union.”

“We negotiated the contract under threat of furlough and there are too many holes in it.”

“I don’t even know who our union rep is.”

About employee engagement and leadership:

“I don’t think they care to make it a great place to work.”

“They don’t know how to generate revenue; they only know how to cut costs.”

  30  

“They don’t see a vision, they only see black and red.”

“We have no authority or tools to make the customer happy.”

“If you have 80,000 people who don’t enjoy coming to work, you’re going to have millions of unhappy customers.”

  31  

Biography of the Author

Joe McDonald started in the hospitality business at the age of four when his father first took him to work behind the bar at the family restaurant. Joe continued in the hospitality/restaurant business, with side trips in acting and musical theater, until a quirk of fate landed him a job with New York Air. His intention was stay a year and then return to his studies at The Catholic University of America, where he had left to “take a break” between sophomore and junior years.

By the time New York Air merged with Continental, Joe was promoted to Supervisor and still not back in school. Being part of a management team during a merger between four different airlines (Continental, People Express, Frontier and New York Air) taught Joe more life lessons than he ever learned in the classroom. Joe remained in management with Continental and was part of the turnaround team for Continental when the airline went “from worst to first” under the visionary leadership of Gordon Bethune.

After over two decades of travelling the world, Joe came close to exhausting global locations to explore. He finally returned to Catholic University where he excelled in communication, management and organizational change classes. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in 2009 and is now, by another quirk of fate, the Associate Director of Admissions at The Metropolitan School of Professional Studies. Joe loves helping adult students return to school to complete their degrees as he did. An accomplished writer, presenter, and motivator, Joe hopes to use his Master of Science in Management, Organizational Communication, and his life experiences to make the workplace, and the world, a happier place.