For this exercise, I chose to compare the websites of Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Two prominent companies in the aerospace and aviation industry, which is, and will most likely always be, the primary industry I'm employed in.
Both companies' websites successfully convey information in a simplified and descriptive manner. With Lockheed Martin, there are navigational links for different levels of employment and experience levels, such as ex-military personnel transitioning into the civilian careers, new college graduates, interns, and experienced professionals. This simplifies the job search into a 'one-click' method in which interested applicants can view the opportunities that are available to their respective experience levels, as well as any further instructions for applying. Boeing, while also having links to different ...view middle of the document...
There isn't that much demand for 'Free Agent' or 'Bargain Laborers', which points to an internal labor orientation and commitment strategy. Since Boeing and Lockheed are using a combination strategy, this HR demand for “Loyal Soldiers' and 'Committed Experts' correlates with the competitive strategy.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin both offer employee stock purchase programs. This benefit correlates with their internal labor approach and focusing on retaining and building long-term relationships with employees. By offering employee stock options, both companies and its employees can grow and benefit from productive and efficient long term employment. However, the aviation industry is facing numerous financial obstacles and outside investment has hindered stock prices. Lockheed Martin had its highest price of almost $100 a share in Sep. 2008, its biggest rise since tumbling after Sep. 11, 2001, and has now settled to around $74 a share. Boeing had it's highest rise to almost $95 in Oct. 2007 and after dropping steadily, has been increasing since 2009 to around $60 a share. This does show that while the industry might be a financial rollercoaster, both companies can survive and continue to rebuild and grow thanks to the efforts of their internal focus on employee relationships.
In afterthought these two companies might not have been the best ones to pick. While these two companies are big rivals in the aviation industry, they are very similar in human resource and competitive strategies. Both have successfully used a mix of cost-leadership and differentiation competitive strategies, while using an internal-commitment human resource strategy. However, this utilization of the uncommon combination strategy does portray how a company in this field, which relies heavily on new technology and development, has to adapt and use unorthodox methods to successfully survive and operate.