Explain the Different Ideas Regarding Organizational Behavior

CEO Paper

Vance Coffman of Lockheed Martin

Explain the Different Ideas Regarding Organizational Behavior

For the purpose of this paper, I have chosen a CEO and company about which I knew very little beyond “aircrafts.” It is true that Lockheed Martin manufactures aircrafts, but I learned a great deal more about its business structure, organization, culture, and especially of Dr. Vance D. Coffman. A man of many titles, including PhD, MS, Chairman, Director, engineer, and CEO (“Man on a Mission”), Vance Coffman was born in Kansas, in 1944, and served Lockheed Martin Corporation in a multitude of capacities that began with the position of guidance and control systems analyst in 1967, before becoming its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board in 1998. After seven years of service in these titles and 37 years of service to Lockheed Martin (Beetz, 2004, Levy, 2003, “After 37 years, Coffman to retire”), Dr. Coffman announced his retirement as the CEO in 2004 and as the Chairman of the Board in 2005. At the age of 62, Dr. Coffman currently sits on the boards of several public companies, including 3M, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Deere & Company (“Vance D Coffman”).

A made leader, Vance Coffman started with Lockheed Martin, “the world’s largest defense, Department of Energy, and NASA contactor (“Man on a Mission”) as a strategic manager and “edge-pushing” engineer who contributed to many well-known and milestone projects for the company, among which are the Hubble Space Telescope, the MILSTAR satellite communications network, Iridium cellular phone system, and the Space-Based Infrared System (“Man on a Mission). Vance Coffman’s accomplishments, awards, and honors span universities and corporations worldwide and are not only based on technological results but also on leadership, director development, humanity, managerial skills, and advancement in personal and professional arenas alike (Stiles, 2004, Beetz, 2004). He made a name for himself as “one of America’s foremost astronautical engineers and business leaders,” and an innovator, developing communication, techniques, and guidelines, Coffman “pressed for openness in dealing with friendly nations and envisioned an age of cooperation among allies that would include sharing of defense technology and the cooperative development of defense systems so that all countries would be equally capable of participating in mutually military obligations,” (Beetz, 2004)

Lockheed Martin’s business is comprised of approximately 57 percent defense, 23 percent civilian government, 16 percent international sales, and 4 percent commercial sales. As CEO, Vance Coffman struggled through obstacles and problems that may have crippled other companies and drowned other executives, but this man’s strength of character did not fail him or the company he represented. Coffman became CEO of Lockheed Martin in 1998 and by the end of the year 1999, Lockheed Martin had to cut about eight thousand jobs. The rumors naturally flew that Coffman was in the hot seat and about to lose his position with the company. That same year, stock value declined 55 percent, and the company was $11 billion is debt; Coffman was responsible to the Pentagon for explaining the company’s failures. For the first time in nearly 40 years, Lockheed Martin lost a $6 billion spy-satellite contract. The opportunity to utilize his reorganizational skills proved to benefit Lockheed Martin, as Vance Coffman brought them back up to the top. A relationship was forged with Daimler Chrysler Aerospace of Germany and Alenia of Italy to design a new extended air defense system was the mark of the reorangization and rise. The MEADS project was to support front-line troops, and Coffman became an advocate for highlighting this project, as well as cooperation among defense allies. It worked, and the orders (including $50 billion in back orders) piled in (Beetz, 2004). In 2003, “Although… defense and IT businesses fared extremely well, the company was hurt by a declining demand for satellites…as well as a downturn in their pension earnings” (“10th annual top 100”). Once again, Vance Coffman’s active participation turned the company around to put it back on top. A company that doesn’t change loses money, and there is always competition pushing to take your place. Coffman’s input and control over the electronic, aeronautical, and astronautical divisions expanded the company’s operations (Beetz, 2004). Overall Coffman strived to reduce debt, mostly from the sale of non-core units. It was