ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR EXAM
SAS Analysis October 2025 (ordinary exam)
Copenhagen Business School
B.Sc. in Business Administration and Service Management
Submission date: 22.10.2025
Supervisor: Pernille Rydén
Student name: Jan Richter
Student number: 179698
Number of characters: 6796
Number of page: 5
Question 1- Organizations and Their Environments
Scandinavian Airlines operates in changing and highly uncertain environment which is shaped by
digitalization, sustainability concerns, labour shortages and geopolitical instability such as the closure
of Russian airspace. The company’s internal configuration no longer fits these conditions which
reveals strategic misalignment between its environment, structure and strategy.
When viewed as an open system (Hatch, 2018), SAS has become slow at adapting to external changes
by changing internally. Airline’s bureaucratic routines and vague coordination prevented them from
timely responses, which are crucial in environment prone to crisis and shifts in market expectations.
Decision-making remained centralized and slow even when dealing with repeated pilot strikes and
fluctuating fuel costs which disrupted operations. The gap between the environment and management
action makes SAS rather reactive than proactive.
Clear contingency misfit is visible from the structural view (Burns & Stalker, 1961). SAS retained its
hierarchal and state-influenced design suited for stable environments rather than the ones with high
uncertainty. Rules and lengthy procedures dominate, while innovation and flexibility lag behind.
Applying these methods in market defined with rapid technological changes, price sensitive
customers, and aggressive low-cost competition limits creativity and introduction of new initiatives.
Confusion around a hybrid identity that is neither premium nor low-cost creates tension for
employees, who are obliged to balance service quality with strict efficiency, making it difficult for
customers to understand what SAS stands for.
Externally, SAS is heavily dependent on governments, unions and its new Air France-KLM partner,
reflecting a resource-dependence logic (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Stakeholders influence company’s
strategy and restrict managerial autonomy which makes it less adapted to the specific environment.
One example could be that government involvement prioritizes national employment, and alliance
partners push for cost reduction and integration. This dependency makes it difficult for SAS to
execute its own way forward.
SAS must realign its organization with
external environment. Clarifying its market identity,
increasing structural adaptability and decentralizing decision-making are essential to fit the unstable
market in which it operates.
1
Question 2- Leadership and Culture
Current leadership at SAS presents itself as caring and responsible while enforcing strict cost-cutting
rules and centralization of power. From the Foucauldian view (Foucault, 1977), the leadership’s
language of „efficiency“, „discipline“ and „turnaround“ defines what counts as success at SAS.
Through repeated talk of survival and performance the management turns care for employees into
expectation of sacrifice. Employees internalize these norms to appear loyal and efficient. This
reinforces the managerial control rather than collaboration.
Martins (1992) perspective on culture reveals contradictions between SAS’s stated values on day-today experiences. The company’s iCARE values promote empathy and inclusion contrary the costcutting, layoffs and centralized decision-making communicates the opposite. The leadership’s talks
about care works more as a way to appear trustworthy during crisis rather than something experienced
by employees daily. Some employees still hold on to the ideal of Scandinavian ideals of cooperation,
while others feel frustrated after repeated changes in structure. These different views reveal culture
which is being fragmented and no longer shares care as a common value. In consequence eroding
trust in leadership and weakening identification with the organization.
The imbalance in meaning discussed previously is also reflected in leadership behavior. Follett’s
(1924) distinction between power-over and power-with highlights how the SAS’s leadership applies
control while speaks iCARE values. The “Hard Kare” leadership style favors authority, efficiency
and measurable results, rewarding those who comply and obey rather than those who collaborate.
Scandinavian work culture once founded on dialogue and participation, has been replaced by fears of
further cuts. Praise for efficiency and loyalty silences individuals, while those who disagree are
labeled as resistant to change. By exploiting power-over rather than power-with, the leadership turns
the organization into a system of control that reinforces authority rather than shared responsibility.
SAS’s leadership and culture expose how control can hide beneath the language of care. The distance
from what is said and what is experienced undermines the Scandinavians ideals of equality and
openness on which SAS’s was once founded. Dealing with these contradictions means accepting
multiple voices instead of adding more managerial rules.
2
Question 3- Proposing Future Actions to SAS
SAS is positioned at the crossroads between maintaining its Scandinavian identity and competing in
price-sensitive airline market. Several years of restructuring and cost-cutting have improved
efficiency, but weakened trust, loyalty, and cultural coherence. To maintain its Scandinavian position,
SAS must align organizational flexibility with authentic leadership and genuine employee
involvement.
To stay competitive, SAS should ensure stronger linkage between its strategy, systems and structure.
Decision-makers need to move closer to operations so local managers can respond quickly to market
changes and still be guided by a clear firm strategy. To regain coherence between external position
and internal design, SAS must clarify its market identity. Whether to act as a premium carrier or as
an accessible hybrid. These improvements would help them to become more adjustable and also better
aligned with the uncertain environment.
Structural changes alone won’t restore SAS’s strength. Leadership must embody the iCARE values
so they become lived experiences rather than slogans. Bringing back open forums where employees
can share ideas and concerns would rebuild trust and a sense of belonging. Essentially renewing
Scandinavian traditions of dialogue and participation. Well organised and interconnected crossfunctional teams could test new innovations and working procedures. This would ensure continuous
learning without relying solely on top management change.
Closing the gap between structure and culture is key for SAS to move forward. The company needs
to stay efficient, but it also has to be true to the openness and trust that define Scandinavian work
life. If leadership can find match between clear systems and real dialogue, the company can stay
competitive without losing the values that once made it respected.
3
References
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Publications.
Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. Longmans, Green and Co.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.
Hatch, M. J. (2018). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (4th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. Harper & Row.
4