Singapore Airlines Case Study
Singapore Airlines was created in 1972 following a separation from Malaysian
Airlines. In the wake of reorganization, Singapore Airlines undertook aggressive
growth, investing and trading to maximize profitability and expand market share.
Through this change, a new company philosophy emerged, “Success or failure is
largely dictated by the quality of service it provides” (Wyckoff, 1989). By reinventing
the company infrastructure and introducing new initiatives focused on excellence in
customer service, Singapore Airlines became a global leader in the service industry,
elevating existing standards among competitors.
Evaluation of Workforce Management Program
The strategy widely utilized by Singapore Airlines to ensure differentiation in an
increasingly competitive market was its attention to in-flight service. “Good flight
service [was] important in its own right and is a reflection of attention to detail
throughout the airline” (Wyckoff, 1989). This statement perpetuated the belief that
excellence in service was directly tied to the careful selection and individual
performance of in-flight crews charged with the responsibility of fulfilling the needs of
individual passengers and exuding the levels of service demanded by the
organization. Applicants destined to work as flight stewards were drawn from a very
young population, typically spanning the ages of 18-25 years of age with high school
equivalency against the English system of education. Selection of applications was
competitive largely due to the degree of skill, poise, and experience required of its
candidates. These policies led to the on-boarding of a highly skilled and youthful
workforce with positive attitudes and a willingness to be trained. Critique of this
approach revealed several disadvantages. The most significant being the potential
for greater turnover when hiring a younger population as opposed to an older, more
experienced crew. Experience alone would play some role in the development of
new employees, as greater experience would bring greater poise and confidence.
However, in light of the predominant population Singapore Airlines catered to, a
younger in-flight crew would remedy the awkwardness likely to be encountered by
older clients being served by older crew members. In addition, a younger crew would
likely be more accepting of new procedures and less cynical of the requirements of
employment.
In light of the young demographic most desired in this role, recruitment, training and
“conversion” processes were both stringent and comprehensive. All aspects of in-
flight service, including training related to terminology, amenities and food
preparation were provided in great detail, as were training for emergency
preparedness and response to every potential scenario encountered in the air and
on the ground. Formalized on-boarding, training and continued development were
the hallmarks of the comprehensive workforce program. Even well into a crew
member’s employment, on-going training and cyclical evaluation provided a
mechanism for employees to be aware of individual performance and gain exposure
to methods of continuous improvement. With an on-going plan of evaluation,
communication, and development, the workforce was well-positioned for high levels
of performance and quality improvements.
Singapore Airlines was created in 1972 following a separation from Malaysian
Airlines. In the wake of reorganization, Singapore Airlines undertook aggressive
growth, investing and trading to maximize profitability and expand market share.
Through this change, a new company philosophy emerged, “Success or failure is
largely dictated by the quality of service it provides” (Wyckoff, 1989). By reinventing
the company infrastructure and introducing new initiatives focused on excellence in
customer service, Singapore Airlines became a global leader in the service industry,
elevating existing standards among competitors.
Evaluation of Workforce Management Program
The strategy widely utilized by Singapore Airlines to ensure differentiation in an
increasingly competitive market was its attention to in-flight service. “Good flight
service [was] important in its own right and is a reflection of attention to detail
throughout the airline” (Wyckoff, 1989). This statement perpetuated the belief that
excellence in service was directly tied to the careful selection and individual
performance of in-flight crews charged with the responsibility of fulfilling the needs of
individual passengers and exuding the levels of service demanded by the
organization. Applicants destined to work as flight stewards were drawn from a very
young population, typically spanning the ages of 18-25 years of age with high school
equivalency against the English system of education. Selection of applications was
competitive largely due to the degree of skill, poise, and experience required of its
candidates. These policies led to the on-boarding of a highly skilled and youthful
workforce with positive attitudes and a willingness to be trained. Critique of this
approach revealed several disadvantages. The most significant being the potential
for greater turnover when hiring a younger population as opposed to an older, more
experienced crew. Experience alone would play some role in the development of
new employees, as greater experience would bring greater poise and confidence.
However, in light of the predominant population Singapore Airlines catered to, a
younger in-flight crew would remedy the awkwardness likely to be encountered by
older clients being served by older crew members. In addition, a younger crew would
likely be more accepting of new procedures and less cynical of the requirements of
employment.
In light of the young demographic most desired in this role, recruitment, training and
“conversion” processes were both stringent and comprehensive. All aspects of in-
flight service, including training related to terminology, amenities and food
preparation were provided in great detail, as were training for emergency
preparedness and response to every potential scenario encountered in the air and
on the ground. Formalized on-boarding, training and continued development were
the hallmarks of the comprehensive workforce program. Even well into a crew
member’s employment, on-going training and cyclical evaluation provided a
mechanism for employees to be aware of individual performance and gain exposure
to methods of continuous improvement. With an on-going plan of evaluation,
communication, and development, the workforce was well-positioned for high levels
of performance and quality improvements.
