Who' failing Boeing?

The Boeing conversation has resurfaced with the company’s chief David Calhoun appearing before a Congressional Committee to testify on the 737 Max crashes yesterday. At the onset, I’ll acknowledge that a Congressional Committee or Parliamentary Committee appearance is a brutal exercise, and it mostly goes south for corporate leaders. In some regions, this is handled effectively by Corporate Affairs teams under Corporate Lobbying. For other regions, it’s handled by Government Engagement teams depending on the magnitude of the issue.

As is expected, the senators were miles ahead of the Boeng chief, coming in heavy backed by a dozen whistleblower messages, news articles, investigators’ reports, Boeing’s financial reports and pressure from families of victims among others.

They say things don’t go wrong; they start wrong. It was reported that in 2013, a pilot lost his cool during a simulation, noting that the decisions the business was making would end up with a smoking hole in the ground. This happened in that exact way in Indonesia in 2018 and Ethiopia in 2019.

Let’s have a look at the initial statements made by the company in response to these two crashes.

- Boeing CEO Issues Statement on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Accident Investigation

- Speech from Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg: 2019 Address to Shareholders

- Boeing Statement on Lion Air Flight 610 Investigation Final Report

These messages appear well crafted and work perfectly where a company does not want to engage, but it’s not ideal in a case such as this where 346 lives were lost. There’s need for a comprehensive response and engagement strategy across all stakeholder segments, beyond the regulatory requirement.

Boeing issued these statements a little too late. In the case of Ethiopia Airlines (ET), the statement was released a week after the crash. This allowed for speculation from the media especially, who fetched information from internal emails, meetings, witness accounts, and other sources. The ‘less said, the better’ strategy often creates information vacuum which is ineffective in a crisis of this magnitude.

Secondly, neither of them takes responsibility, they’re overtly defensive and keep retaliating the safety message which is exactly where the company has constantly failed. This incessance without ownership continues to erode brand trust among stakeholders, who fiercely challenge the company’s safety and quality commitment.

Thirdly, the management appear indifferent. If you ask who’s responsible and accountable, it’s MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), at least from the tone of the statements, the management team distances itself from the mess completely. They appear to be following the events like the rest of the world, they’re also relying on FAA (Federations Aviation Administration) to help them understand their problem.

Finally, there are a myriad of inconsistencies in messaging over the 5 years, everybody else can tell what's the problem, but Boeing doesn't seem to be in the know, somehow. What concerns me most is that the safety issue is not fixed yet, with the January Alaska incident still hanging over the aviation industry’s head. An operations issue has been largely addressed as a reputational issue, instead of fixing the operational issue and the reputational issue will autocorrect.

Missed opportunities

Boeing and its stakeholders are completely capable of fixing these challenges, but they just can’t seem to admit to themselves what the mistakes are, fix them and then come back and face the world on a higher pedestal. Understandably so, because we can all imagine the lawsuits and glaring losses that come with this but what choice do they have?

?The business brought in a new CEO in 2022 which should have been a great chance at a turnaround, but he seems to be dancing the same dance. Former CEO, Dennis Mullenberg appeared more aware, composed and remorseful at least from his body language. You could also tell that he understood the technicalities from his responses, but it was also clear that he was shielding his company and concealing some truth for whatever reason.

Enter Mr. Calhoun and after yesterday’s testimony to the Congressional Committee, one can’t help but wonder what’s going on. To begin with, he needed to highlight proof points on tangible changes that the manufacturer has taken to avoid further plane malfunctions and crashes because that’s the main problem. He needed to clearly articulate the question on product safety and quality, sadly, he too did not appear confident in his product.

Secondly, he ought to have prepared better. This being the second appearance for the company, learnings should have been factored. It would have helped to collate all concerns expressed by different stakeholders and developed appropriate responses. I was dismayed by the chief’s inability to answer multiple questions from the senators around counterfeit parts, D&I, whistleblower protection, employee experience, significant amounts paid in fines, tax deductions and matters insurance among others. There should have been a factsheet to aid his delivery around these issues.

Thirdly, it’s always important to know who you’ll be facing and studying their style of questioning and preparing for it. Senator Hawley, a lawyer and politician is known for his ruthless and close to hostile approach; Senator Johnson, a former CEO and seasoned politician known for his versatile style: and the committee chair, Senator Richard Blumenthal, known for his aggressive law enforcement. When you know who you’re up against, you prepare adequately and uplevel both mentally and psychologically.

Finally, it helps to physically rehearse the session together with the management team to assess the delivery and identify possible gaps. A strong closing statement also comes in handy because that’s what people remember mostly.

I wish the once considered jewel of American manufacturing prowess, Boeing, the very best.

MK’s World

#KeepMoving