VW Australia- Communications Audit

VW Australia

Communications

Audit Matthew Pearce

MatthewPearce CommunicationAudit

2

Executive Summary The VW Group is multinational automotive manufacturing organisation with the espoused

values of high quality vehicles, caring for its people and listening to its customers.

Our team undertook a communication audit of the Australian financial arm of the organisation

using a combination of online surveys, management interviews and research to assess the

strengths and weaknesses of the organization, specifically focusing on organisational

communication, leadership, culture and inter-departmental communication.

The analysis of the information collected during the audit found that the VW group had

developed and open work organisation culture that was performing well in regards to

communication. This was evidenced by the positive culture within employees and the central

role organisational communication played in the workplace.

The findings within the organisation were generally positive, however two key issues were

identified that threaten the commercial success of the company in Australia:

• The organisation was struggling with low customer service ratings

• The managing director becoming increasingly time poor to effectively manage their

strategic role

Our report identified a relationship between a Model II organisation and these issues, with our

key recommendation being that

1. Promoting increased dialogue between the lower tier employees

2. Having employees develop better negotiation skills

3. Consequently allowing General Mangers more time to increase their own interaction

and strategic oversight

Overall the organization serves as an example of the benefits that can be gained by

encouraging open dialogue within an organisation, but demonstrates the practical difficulties

faced in applying best practice theory within the field.


3

Table of Contents 1.0. Introduction/ Organisation Background

2.0. Methodology

3.0. Data analysis

3.1. Employee survey

3.2. Management interview

4.0. Findings and Theoretical application

4.1. Successful Organisational Dialogue

4.2. Developing Employee and Manager Dialogue

5.0. Recommendations

5.1. Recommendation 1: Strengthen Employee-to-Employee Dialogue

5.2. Recommendation 2: Increase Employee Negotiation Skills

5.3. Recommendation 3: Increase Manager-to-Manager Communication

6.0. Conclusion

7.0. Reference list

8.0. Appendices

8.1. Appendix A: Company VW Questionnaire

8.2. Appendix B: Questionnaire Analysis

8.3. Appendix C: Managers Interview

8.4. Appendix D: VW Vision, Mission and Values

8.5. Appendix D: VW Newspaper Article


4

1.0. Introduction/ Organisation Background

VW Group is one of the world’s leading automobile manufacturers and the largest carmaker

in Europe. The Group operates 94 production plants in 18 European countries and a further

eight countries in the Americas, Asia and Africa. It has 501,956 employees worldwide who

produce some 34,500 vehicles, are involved in vehicle-related services or work in the other

fields of business. VW Group sells its vehicles in 153 countries.

VW Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of VW Group. VW Australia acts as the

Australian distribution and brand support centre and is headquartered in Sydney, NSW. VW

has a dedicated team of 200 people handling all aspects of the companies Australian

operations from supporting sales growth and the expanded network of dealerships and service

facilities. VW Financial services specifically focus’s on the financial loans that support

dealerships sustainable expansion and creation.

The Goal of VW Australia is to support the mission of the Group to offer attractive, safe and

environmentally sound vehicles which are competitive in an increasingly tough market and

which set world standards in their respective classes. Its central vision is to ‘be the best

solution in services to the clients and dealers of VW Group.’

Presently VW Australia has experienced rapid sales growth. From 2009-2012 cars sold in

Australia increased from 30,087 to 54,892 at an average rate of 17.7%. Consequently it has

set the new all-time Australian record for car sales. However while this is a positive for the

company it has led to major shortages in service provision leading to:

• A consistently low customer service rating. Out of the twelve major Australian brands

it has been ranked last from 2012-2014 by the JD Power Customer Service Index

(CSI)

• Cutting product offerings from three major brands

• Suspending any plans for further cat dealerships within Australia

The objective of this report is to determine the reason for this oversight in service and whether

this could have been avoided with sound communication practices. Further it will investigate

whether changes are needed to the current communications model to improve effectiveness of


5

operations. Whereby our goal is to analyse the underlying challenges and opportunities for

VW Australia into the future.

2.0. Methodology

In order to get a complete and representative picture of the organisation’s communication

structure, this study has used primary data collected through both a quantitative questionnaire

and a qualitative interview. The report focused on one department directly responsible for the

financial services as quoted in the introduction. This department consisted of one General

Manager and 20 employees who report directly to him.

The questionnaire was the base we used in order to conduct our primary research and

consisted of 31 questions given to all the employees within the work group. The employee

survey was built around four broad areas:

1. Organisational Communication

2. Organisational Leadership

3. Inter-Department Communication

4. Organisational Culture

Of the 20 possible respondents, 11 completed the survey, which is a response rate of 55 per

cent. The results from the questionnaire were analysed and common response pattern

identified

A Qualitative interview was consequently conducted with the general manager, based on the

findings from the quantitative research and in-depth questions were designed. A complete

analysis was developed post interview to further examine the commonality of findings.

To provide meaningful advice to VW, data collected from the surveys and interview were

further combined with relevant academic literature using the triangulation method thereby

providing VW with a comprehensive report and recommendations:


6

Analysis

Analysis of the research will

form the core of the reports

findings and subsequent

recommendations.

The primary function of the

analysis is to identify the key

issues to be discussed in the

evaluation from which

recommendations can be drawn.


7

3.0. Data Analysis 3.1. Employee survey

Regarding the organisational communication, the most common communication form are face

to face, followed by emails and then meetings, which are also stated as the top three most

effective ones. Every one of the respondents agreed that the mission statement is

communicated effectively to them, 100% of these confirm that they understand the mission.

Of this 40% felt they were very connected to the mission, vision and objectives, while 20%

felt moderately connected and 40% were neutral. Of all the respondents no one felt

disconnected to VW´s mission. This indicates a clear vision of the organisation that is

connected to all.

The data collected from the survey gave indications of a soft and effective leadership style.

All participants rated their leader as either ‘very approachable’ or ‘approachable’ (81.2% and

18.2%). Also, they trust managers’ judgement capability and evaluate managers’

communication as effective (36.4% of ‘very effective’, 54.5% of ‘effective’). Overall the data

collected from the survey proved that the leadership is effective, although it is mixed thoughts

about how much the manager is listening to the employees when making decisions. It was

shown that 50% think their managers always listen to employee’s suggestions when making

decisions. 60% of the respondents described the communication as effective. The results from

the survey showed that the organisation rely on clear goals and numbers. This indicates that it

is an outcome driven organisation, which also supports the claims that both the leadership and

the communication within the organisation are effective (Appendix B).

There is a good cooperation between the different departments, they are generally very open

to share information with each other and there is a low level of competition between them.

Regarding the willingness to share important information to other departments, 50% claimed

that other departments are willing to share such information; 30% said always; 20% said

sometimes and no one said seldom or never (Appendix B).

All in all, the organisational culture can be described as open and engaging. When asked if

there is a culture of openness and sharing within VW, 50% claimed that openness and sharing

are constantly encouraged; 40% said that the employees regularly engage; and 10% were

neutral. When asked what characterises their organisation, 72% of participants voted that the


8

organisation was ‘united’ and 18% voted for ‘very united’. If conflicts arise, they are

according to the respondents handled and solved within a timely manner, and the trust among

the employees and between managers and the employees were both described as good (see

Appendix B). To sum up, the organisational culture can be described as collaborative, non-

competitive with high emphasis on trust (Appendix B).

3.2. Management interview Through the interview, important findings from the survey become stronger as it was

confirmed and supported by the GM. When asked how the employees are as communicators,

the answer was that they are good communicators, but that there are times of friction that

takes time to mediate and solve. This supports the answer from the survey; that conflicts are

usually solved within a timely manner. The interview proved that the employees

communicate very well with their manager and the communication between the employees

were said to be good most of the time. However, the General Manager admits that there are

times he has to put his own work on hold in order to figure out and mediate friction that has

occurred (Appendix C).

The GM sees himself less as a boss and more of a team captain and constantly encourages

employee feedback. He promotes a two-pronged approach when leading employees of

personnel of accountability and personal brand. His style of management is that of a

‘contingency manager’, managing all staff by promoting their strengths and helping them

where they find challenges. Thereby reflecting what VW global encourages in their managers

through full leadership assessment and development on all levels. The organisation seeks

consistency, not conformity on an international scale. Based on the information gathered from

this interview, the leadership style can be described as soft (Appendix C).

It was further confirmed that the employees are heard when making decisions, as it was stated

that objectives are set through the team, or described as ‘Management by Objectives.’ This

also underpins the fact that the organisation relies on teamwork, which was indicated through

the survey. The organisation was again described as uncompetitive, and those who leave the

organisation were said to be people who typically are not comfortable with a flat management

style. Compared to earlier work places, the GM describes VW as the flattest he ever has been

a part of. The interview gave a clear picture of the organisation as flat (Appendix C).


9

Although the interviewee gave evidence of an organisation with positive characteristics, he

did note the following challenges:

• How does the flat structure of the organisation support rapid growth as being

experienced?

• The role the GM has at the moment does not match his job description of being a

strategic manager and while things within the organisation are OK, the big things may

not be done well enough. It is difficult to be strategic when too much time is spent on

daily communication. The following answer was given when asked for a description

on his role as a General Manager of the finance department: “When checking with a

time tracker, I found that on a regular day I spend 80 per cent of my time on day-to-

day operations and 20 per cent on strategy” (Appendix C).

4.0. Findings and Theoretical Application 4.1. Successful Organisational Dialogue

Flat Management refers to ‘the number of employees reporting to a supervisor’, and it

determines how tall or flat the structure is in an organisation (Daft 2012, pp. 267). A flat

structure ‘which has a wide span, is horizontally dispersed, and has fewer hierarchical levels,’

(Daft 2012, pp. 267) adopted avoids disadvantages from a tall one. These problems include

expense, complicated and often confusing communication and slow decision-making

processes (Griffin 2010). There are strong indications of a heterarchical structure within VW

and as such it has shown openness, ‘authentic leadership’ and ‘double loop learning’ that is

characterised by a Model II organisation (Mauzutis & Slawinski 2008).

Mazutis and Slawinski (2008) characterises a Model I institution as that which employees

behaviours are predominately defensive, evasive and focused on self-preservation thereby

restricting organisational dialogue and learning. This is typically reflected in a top down

structure where communication is a one directional linear process. In contrast, their ‘Model II

Organisation’ (Mauzutis & Slawinski 2008) is characterised by ‘authentic leadership’ and

‘authentic dialogue.’ It was shown that the culture in VW is open, and sharing is highly

valued as well as being commonplace, which are typical Model II characteristics (Mauzutis &

Slawinski 2008). VW has implemented an authentic dialogue style, in which the

communication is ‘open, balanced and transparent’ (Mauzutis & Slawinski 2008, pp. 447)

within the organisation. It is clear to see that VW benefits from a flat structure as it enhances


10

the communication between the top management and the operational workers, which further

increases the quality and the efficiency of decision-making processes.

Evidence from the questionnaire suggests that at VW the decision-making processes involves

all levels within the organisation and is not a task for the top management only. Tourish &

Hargie (2009) highlights the importance of including the employees in decision-making

processes to ensure that they feel committed to the outcome of the decisions. When they feel

committed, they are also more likely to handle customers in a way that makes them willing to

come back (Tourish & Hargie 2009). It’s flat management structure allows top management

to get in touch with operational employees, and strengthen the communication between each

other, which is evidenced in the survey and interview. The communication flow in VW is,

according to the Appendix B, open all the way to the top executives. Outcomes from data

indicate that employees can go to their manager for assistance when needed. Likewise, the

managers are reliable and have the abilities to make the right decisions on behalf of the

employees and the organisation. Therefore, conflicts can be resolved without delay. As a

return, productivity raises and then supports the rapid growth of VW Group.

Northup (2006) indicates that an organization’s culture and working atmosphere have a major

influence on employee’s readiness to open up and become more communicative. The

presence of a fully shared understanding of VW’s vision, mission and objectives indicates that

the dialogue within the organisation is effective. These shared ideals can be considered a

consequence of the central role dialogue has in the organisation, consequently creating shared

and mutual understanding (Mauzutis & Slawinski 2008). Senge (1995) argues that dialogue is

a process where the participants learn how to think together, in which the whole group as a

team creates the outcomes. As one of the core values to VW is to be ‘a living commitment to

our customers’ (See Appendix D), it is important that it’s employees feel committed and

connected to what the organisation represent and stand for, in order to maintain a high level of

motivation that further drives them to perform a good job (McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione

2013).

All of this can be considered a result of ‘authentic leadership’ shown by VW’s General

Manager. Managers who possess such leadership style practice an open, truthful, balanced

and encouraging communication culture (Mazutis and Slawski 2008), which according to the

conducted research was identified in VW (See Appendix B). According to Northup (2006),


11

highly effective managers are excellent communicators who have high levels of interpersonal

competence that will lead directly to high personal achievement. Successful managers will

always strive to increase their open free areas and to reduce their blind, hidden and unknown

areas (Northup 2006). Isaacs (1999) also highlights the importance of a good communication

within an organisation, as he claims that people who do not communicate, can neither work

together. It was further shown that the manager possessed good listening skills (See Appendix

B). According to Groysberg & Slind (2012) a manager with a high focus on communication

understands the relevance of listening, which they again claims that lead to useful and

effective dialogue.

4.2. Communication Gaps Within VW

While a non-competitive and collaborative culture is considered an efficient and effective

work environment, in practical terms transferring to a complete open environment does have

its limits. While at the moment this does not present a problem in VW, it could pose a

possible issue as stated within the management interview (See Appendix C) as VW shows

rapid growth into the future.

Due to the lack of managers overseeing a rapidly increasing employee base in VW, this has

led to more day-to-day administrative and supervisory responsibilities flow to each manager

(Griffin, 2010). Extra responsibilities not only equal a massive workload for a manager, but

can also be a distraction from an organisational strategic standpoint as is evidenced in VW.

As the General Manager from VW Group states, his official role is to focus on the strategy

and future business development, including marketing communication, brand management,

dealership and pricing. However, with 20 subordinates/employees and 13 reporting directly to

him, 80% of his time is spent on day-to-day communication, and only 20% of time is on the

strategy. This also leads to not enough daily interactions with the other General Managers, as

too much time is spent dealing with their own employees. Consequently this has led to less

intra-organisational collaboration and dialogue in the upper level of the organisation. This

lack of communication between managers, has led to strategic gaps as is evidenced in the low

CSI rating (See Appendix E).


12

While the cause of this failure cannot be linked directly to the effectiveness of communication

in the organisation, the presence of a positive culture is evidently not a protection from this

type of strategic failure occurring. Bates et al (1995) argues that strategy and culture are so

deeply intertwined on so many levels and when focusing on outcomes. Both aim to develop a

consistency in direction, decision-making and norms within the organisation. While VW

appears to have motivated staff that enjoys their roles, there is a suggestion in the findings

that communication is stronger between managers and their staff rather between the staff

themselves and between managers as a result of this open structure.

5.0. Recommendations

5.1. Recommendation 1: Strengthen Employee-to-Employee Dialogue Continuing to strengthen the dialogue among the employees at lower levels is considered an

important issue that should be focused on, as this could reduce the time the GM spends on

day-to-day issues with them. This might further improve the collaboration level among

employees, as it supports Senge (1995) viewpoint of dialogue that is given in the previous

section.

5.2. Recommendation 2: Increase Employee Negotiation Skills Negotiation is another important attribute not only for managers but also for employees. To

develop negotiation skills, employees need to distinguish several negotiation strategies as

win-win, win-lose, lose-win or lose-lose. Analysing personal styles can help them find the

way to affect negotiation. To achieve the best outcome from negotiation, employees also need

to exchange information in a way that establishes trust and confidence. This is particularly

important within VW because too much of the General Manager’s time is spent solving

employee conflict and negotiating outcomes. If employees developed their own skills this

would again free up the managers time.

5.3. Recommendation 3: Increase Manager-to-Manager

Communication As it stands there is not enough daily contact between mangers to develop a deeper dialogue

between them. Currently General Managers communicate predominantly within formal

meetings held once a week for operation updates and once monthly for strategic decision


13

making. VW’s GM ideally wishes that there would be more everyday contact to further

increase managers understanding and dialogue. Unfortunately, due to each manger’s

constraint in dealing with employee operational communication they have not found enough

time. This has on occasion led to misunderstandings and miscommunication between

managers. Alongside the strengthening of employee-to-employee engagement in

Recommendation one and two, managers also need to strive to meet and engage other

managers on a daily basis. This will be more possible as employee dialogue develops and the

manager does not feel the need to engage and assist in this.

6.0. Conclusion

The VW group has successfully implemented an open dialogue within the organisation and is

seeing benefits to their organisation of this model have also brought challenges to the business

that threaten its commercial success in the future.

The recommendations suggest that despite strong communication between managers and their

direct staff, there is a dialogue gap between employees consequently causing mangers to

focus less on strategic communication between themselves and more on day-to-day employee

engagement. these recommendations include:

1. An increased dialogue between employees

2. Developing employees negotiation skills to overcome conflicts

3. Whereby freeing their managers time to further engage other managers and focus on

strategic direction

The company remains an example of the benefits of being a Model II organisation, but also

serves as a reminder that organisational development is an ongoing process that requires

periodic assessment to ensure the strategic fit of the company’s practices to their operations.


14

7.0. Reference List

Birkinshaw, J. M. & Morrison, A. J. 1995, ‘Configurations of Strategy and Structure in

Subsidiaries of multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies,

vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 729-753.

Daft, R. L. 2014, Management, 10th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Australia.

Downs, C. W. & Adrian, A. D. 2012, Assessing organizational communication: Strategic

communication audits. Guilford Press, UK.

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Yang, B. and Howton, S.W. 2002, ‘The relationship between

the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: an empirical

assessment’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 5-21

Griffin, R. W. 2010, Management, 10th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Australia.

Groysberg, B. & Slind, M. 2012, ‘ Leadership is a conversation’, Harvard Business Review,

vol. 90, no 6, pp. 76-84.

Isaacs, W. N. 1999, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A pioneering Approach to

Communication in Business and in Life, Currency, New York.

Mazutis, D. & Slawinski, N. 2008, 'Leading Organizational Learning Through Authentic

Dialogue', Management Learning, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 437-56.

McShane, S., Olekalns, M. & Travaglione T. 2013, Organisational Behaviour, 4th edn,

McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, Australia.

Senge, P. M. 1995, The fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a

Learning Organization, Nicholas Brealey, London.


15

Shockley-Zalabak, S. 2009, Fundamentals of Organisational Communication, 7th edn.,

Pearson Education. Inc., Boston.

Tourish, D. & Hargie, O. 2009, ’Communication and organizational success’, in Auditing

Organisational Communication: A Handbook of Research, Theory and Practice,

Routledge, London, pp.3-26


16

8.0. Appendices 8.1. Appendix A: Company VW Questionnaire

1. How long have you been with VW? □ Less than two year □ More than two year 2. Please indicate the frequency of use of communication methods. (top= most frequent, bottom= least frequent) □ Face to face □ Telephone (mobile or landline) □ Email □ Meetings □ Social media platforms □ Other 3. Please rate forms of communication from most to least effective. (Top = most effective, bottom = least effective □ Face to face □ Telephone (mobile or landline) □ Email □ Meetings □ Social media platforms □ Other 4. How effective is communication in your organisation? □ Very effective □ Effective □ Neutrally effective □ Not effective □ Not at all effective 5. In your opinion, what causes conflicts in your organisation, including individual conflicts and inter-departmental conflicts? □ Lack of information/ knowledge to complete jobs □ Different goals/purpose □ Unfairness in promotion or benefits □ Misunderstanding in objectives/projects □ Ineffective actions/procedures 6. Is conflict handled and resolved in a timely manner? □ Yes □ No

7. Do you know and understand your organisation’s mission statement? □ Yes □ No 8. How is your organisation’s mission statement communicated to you? □ Written policies and procedures □ Initial induction process □ Regular communication from management □ Not sure □ It is not communicated 9. Do projects have clear goals and outlines? □ Yes always □ Sometimes □ Neutral □ Rarely □ No never 10. Does the organisation communicate news and changes in a timely manner? □ Yes always □ Sometimes □ Neutral □ Rarely □ No never 11. How approachable is your direct manager? □ Very approachable □ Approachable □ Neither approachable nor unapproachable □ Unapproachable □ Very unapproachable 12. How effective do you find leadership in your organisation? □ Very effective □ Effective □ Neutrally effective □ Ineffective □ Very ineffective


17

13. Does management recognize and promote the success of employees? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 14. Do you trust your manager to make the right decisions on behalf of you and the organisation? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 15. How would you evaluate your manager’s communication? □ Very effective □ Effective □ Neutrally effective □ Ineffective □ Very ineffective 16. How is feedback commonly given? Please indicate the frequency of use of methods. □ Openly (everyone evaluates each other) □ One on one □ Email □ Formal feedback processes 17. I receive most of the information I need through informal channels? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 18. Do you trust your workmates to complete their jobs to a high standard? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never

19. What is the level of competition between the different departments? □ Highly competitive □ Competitive □ Neutral □ Non-competitive □ Very non-competitive 20. What is the level of cooperation between the different departments? □ Very cooperative □ Cooperative □ Neutral □ Uncooperative □ Very uncooperative 21. Other departments are willing to share important information with my department? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 22. Does your department show willingness to share knowledge and information with other departments? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 23. The information I receive from other departments is consistently reliable. □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 24. Is there a high emphasis on team performance (Individual KPIs)? □ Very high □ High □ Neutral □ Low □ Very low


18

25. In the organization, the communication flow is "open" all the way to top Executives? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never 26. How connected do you feel to the organisation vision, misson and objectives? □ Very connected □ Connected □ Neutral □ Slightly disconnected □ Completely disconnected 27. How would you characterize you organization? □ Very united □ United □ Neutral □ Slightly disjointed □ Very disjointed 28. Does your manager listen to employee’s suggestions when making decisions? □ Always □ Very often □ Sometimes □ Seldom □ Never

29. Do you feel you are overall a valued asset within the organisation? □ Yes, in both my team/department and organization □ Yes, but only in my team/department □ No 30. Is there a culture of openness and sharing within VW? □ Yes this is constantly encouraged □ Yes we regularly engage □ Neutral □ This happens rarely □ This is the culture of the organization 31. What are the most important factors that affect employees performance? □ Effective leadership □ Extensive communication □ Organizational culture □ Strong team work □ Benefits/promotions/rewards □ Working environment □ Training/development □ Goal setting and feedback 32. The organisation mostly rely on work conducted by □ Teams □ Individuals


19

8.2. Appendix B: Questionnaire Analysis Question 1 Question 2

Question 3 Question 4



20






21






22






23



24

8.3. Appendix C: Management Interview Are your employees good communicators? They are to a point:

·Good communicators to Rhys ·Between themselves most of the time ·BUT like all work places there are times of friction that take time out of his work day to figure out and mediate

Describe your role as manager. RHYS ·Official Role is Business Development

Meant to be focused on the strategy and future business developments- marketing communications, brand manager, pricing, dealership pricing BUT REALITY Too operational and transactional 80% of time spent on day-to-day operations, 20% on

strategy (he did this by setting a time tracker) ·Sees himself as the captain of the team not the boss- encourages feedback VW Official ·High emphasis placed on management training ·It’s people are one of it’s 4 tiers that they build their organisation so take their management very seriously (PROFIT/VOLUME/PEOPLE/CUSTOMERS) ·Full leadership assessment and development done at all levels

2nd line managers- 3 day assessment course Senior Managers- Week long testing and training Country- Go to Germany for a few weeks to get

training there ·Are looking for Consistency NOT Conformity

How do you motivate your employees? ·Official VW benefits 12% Super + extra insurance Cheap car lease deals (e.g. employees can get an A3 for $400 per month- Change cars every 4000km) Highest paid car workers in the world BUT are also most productive- what 1 VW employee does is the equivalent of 3 Australian High social component within the Organisation

·Quarterly Recognition awards Do you encourage your employees to be out-going and come up with initiatives to possible changes? If yes, how? Which direction are the initiatives coming from?

·Management by objectives Not top down objectives Objectives are set through the team- Asks the question what do the employees think need to happen

·Has a contingency management style Give the strong employees jobs and let them go Help the struggling employees

Without hierarchy and with soft power being used by management, how do you enforce/encourage personal responsibility/ personal leadership within teams?

·Work on a two pronged approach when leading employees:

Personal Accountability- Don’t fear failure, work to learn Personal Brand- How do you want people to think about you in business But got to know when to be tough when an employee is ‘inconsistent’ in their behaviour in regards to the above

·It’s all about bringing the right people into the team This is a quote from when he internally hired a

member from finance into fleet development who had no direct experience, but was a good employee to work with: ‘I can teach you how to manage fleet, But I can’t teach someone else not to be a dickhead’ ·If something does go wrong, he is ‘hard on the process not the people.


25

What do you think are the biggest challenges moving forward?

·How fast can we grow with this type of management structure? ·How much change can we take? ·Wants to be more proactive and not reactive (goes towards the point above) ·Lots of think OK BUT they are not doing the big things really well.

Further notes VW’s Role: ·Help fund new dealerships ·Developed floor plans ·Loans for Dealerships ·Dealer then will sell their finance services for them to the customer ·Structure of VW Finance Services

2 Dual Managing Directors (Finance and Sales and Marketing) 8 Executive Team GMs (Rhys is one such) 100 Employees

·Executive managers formal meetings- short weekly, 1 long monthly

He wishes there was more everyday contact BUT they are so busy dealing with day-to-day issues that they have no time. This does lead on occasion to misunderstandings and miscommunication between managers

·Has 20 employees under him of which 13 report directly to him- Thinks there should be a second line manager here so he can focus more on his executive role and strategy ·It’s a very uncompetitive environment- which is hard for people who are naturally competitive ·He likes the fact that they have the support of a big conglomerate, but are very small team locally focused on people ·People who leave are typically not used to the flat management style

Not a lot of room for progression (could explain why people say they are not awarded for their work) He has worked for GE, NAB and says that this is the flattest he’s ever been apart of.

·Most people there have been there less than 2 years because of the rapid growth experienced.

Challenges as I see it and Rhys agreed ·A lot of focus on management skills in leadership and communication- maybe more needs to be focused on employee communication skills and how they interact to avoid unnecessary friction and build better employee dialogue: Manager to employee is good Employee to manager is good Employee to employee is inconsistent causing friction Manager to manager not enough Company needs to go a little more towards hierarchy To structure the rapid growth in the company Allow executive team to work together better To allow executive team to focus more on strategy (so as to avoid problems I quoted in introduction) Its very hard for him at the moment to step back and be strategic because he is always dealing with his team


26

8.4. Appendix D: VW Vision, Mission and Values


27

8.5. Appendix D: VW Newspaper Article

Documents

VW Australia- Communications Audit