HOVERTEC

Hovertec is a large company which has been manufacturing civilian and military helicopters for nearly $50$ years. The company is very successful in its field and during $2023/2024$ achieved total sales over R$280$ million. Profits before taxation

exceeded R$16$ million. Hovertec employs over $6000$ people, most of whom work in three manufacturing plants which are situated in Gauteng, North$-$West Province and the Western Cape.

The company has developed two main types of helicopters. These are the $$Falcon$$ range of small helicopters, which are sold to civilian operators and the $$SX$/$Hawk$$ range of small and large military helicopters which are produced for government

defence projects. Some export orders of $$XS$/$Hawk helicopters are manufactured for NATO countries.

The Manufacture of a Helicopter

Without going into technical details, the manufacture of a helicopter can be divided into five interconnected processes:

$1.$ The power unit, which $$drives$$ the helicopter like an engine drives a motor car.

$2.$ The helicopter loom, which is an inter$-$woven collection of between $1200$ and $2000$ insulated copper wires and electrical cables, connecting the power unit with the various $$control$$ switches, dials, buttons and levers in the cockpit

and passenger$/$crew compartment, and can be compared, in human terms, with the function of the spinal cord in linking the brain with the arms and legs, etc.

$3.$ The external rotor blades, which are mounted over the cockpit and passenger $/$ crew compartment, and also above the tail of the helicopter.

$4.$ The cockpit and passenger $/$ crew compartment, which has a different layout, services and accessories depending on whether the helicopter is intended for civilian or military purposes.

$5.$ The superstructure or shell, which encases the helicopter in a similar manner to the bodywork on a motorcar.

Although the latest technology is used in these production and assembly processes, the manufacture of a complete

helicopter is a relatively slow process, taking three weeks for a civilian unit and four weeks for the larger, more sophisticated military helicopter. The main $$bottleneck$$ in the process is the long time taken to assemble the helicopter loom and complete he $12002000$ connections between the power unit and the numerous helicopter systems and services.

Proposed Changes in the Helicopter Loom Workshop

Within six months, a decision was taken by the Hovertec senior management to transfer the new computerised system pilot project to the loom workshop on a three$-$months$$ trial basis. Management informed the workforce about the proposed trials beforehand and the loom technicians accepted the proposed change after receiving a personal assurance that no retrenchments would occur as a result of the trial.

Leadership

Incidences of poor leadership also became evident during the implementation of the new helicopter loom$-$assembly method, particularly under the autocratic and task$-$based leadership of the Operations Director, John Dube. Dube$$s leadership style was characterised by unilateral decision$-$making and a focus on meeting production targets at all costs. Empathy, effective communication skills, and emotional intelligence, are skills which Dube clearly lacked. For instance, he mandated the transition to the new assembly method without consulting the loom technicians or their union representatives, instead informing them through impersonal briefing procedures.

Additionally, while Dube's autocratic and task$-$oriented style might be effective in highly structured and clear$-$cut situations, itwas ill$-$suited for the dynamic and uncertain environment presented by the new assembly method implementation. Dube$$spoor leader$-$member relations, characterised by his lack of empathy and poor communication, undermined his ability to effectively manage the team.

Dube insisted on the immediate start of the pilot project, dismissing concerns about the readiness of the workforce and the reliability of the new technology, showcasing a lack of emotional intelligence and self$-$confidence in addressing legitimate concerns. He enforced strict adherence to the new procedures, reprimanding any loom technician who voiced objections or pointed out potential flaws. Additionally, Dube's approach to the female operators was highly rigid$$ he refused to address their grievances about harassment or equipment malfunctions, focusing solely on productivity metrics. This autocratic leadership style not only alienated the experienced loom technicians but also created a hostile work environment, leading to a drop in morale and a subsequent decline in productivity, thereby compromising the company's operational efficiency and contractual commitments.

QUESTION $2(25$ Marks$)$

Critically analyse John Dube's leadership from the perspective of trait theory and the perspective of contingency theory.