GM And Boeing Post Assignment

GM and Boeing Post Assignment

Jorge Pachecho

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

GM and Boeing Post Assignment

Response one

The organizational culture of General Motors leads defects in parts and automobile. The organizational effectiveness depend on the performance of the employees who are sources of production. The culture of GM was emphasizing the ‘do not share’ concept and employees were not allowed to share defects in vehicle parts. The organization did not allow the replacement of defected parts. The reason why GM management did not allow employees to share the part problems was that it would have led to too much cost losses. However, Employees had to remain silent, if they would have react to the defective parts that had to loose their jobs, there fore they preffered to not become aggressive about their invpvement in the production of the defective parts of GM vehicles. The organization suggested them to introduce new production, so that others would assume that it is improving the quality. Although employees were aware of the defective parts in their vehicles which were causing the fatalities, but still they continued their production of vehicle parts. Management suggested them that if they keep silent about the defective part, then they will be promoted.

Response Two

The FAA measures performances of the organizatuons, is concerned with the safety of airline services, and welcomes the possible changes required to ensure the security recommendations. The FAA reauthorization bill does not allow airlines until they make new software and production developments. However, Boeing did not provide a detailed report because they changed the software which would detect the issues in the airplane parts rather than changing the engine which was defected. This was defended by both FAA and Boeing stating that they followed and adhered to meeting the safety standards. The FAA handed over the responsibility of the accountability to the manufacturers and the Boeing. The first reason is that they did not give too much importance to the new manufacturers because they had no such idea about the intricacies. The second reason for not submitting a formal review of Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System is that Boeing was overhauling MCAS and making changes in the speed, stabilizer and overall changes in the version ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"B9esKPlh","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Kitroeff, Gelles, & Nicas, 2019)","plainCitation":"(Kitroeff, Gelles, & Nicas, 2019)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":692,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/5JN575W4"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/5JN575W4"],"itemData":{"id":692,"type":"webpage","title":"The Roots of Boeing’s 737 Max Crisis: A Regulator Relaxes Its Oversight - The New York Times","URL":"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-faa.html","author":[{"family":"Kitroeff","given":"Natalie"},{"family":"Gelles","given":"David"},{"family":"Nicas","given":"Jack"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2019",7,27]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,18]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Kitroeff, Gelles, & Nicas, 2019)

References

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Kitroeff, N., Gelles, D., & Nicas, J. (2019, July 27). The Roots of Boeing’s 737 Max Crisis: A Regulator Relaxes Its Oversight - The New York Times. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/business/boeing-737-max-faa.html