Gap Analysis: Global Communications

Running head: GAP ANALYSIS: GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS

Gap Analysis: Global Communications

Gap Analysis: Global Communications

Management is an ever changing landscape that tests ones ability to be innovative, to make quality decisions, to develop and nurture relationships, and to resolve conflict while attempting to act fairly and ethically. To be successful a company must not only meet or exceed the expectations of its customers but also its employees and stockholders. Management has to be forward thinking but know that not all of their decisions are going to please everyone but that at the end of the day they were the best decisions for the business.

In the case of Global Communications they were faced with dropping stock-prices, reduced market-share and new competition that was providing streamlined products that Global could not match with their current resources. They realized change was inevitable if they were to maintain their position as a communications industry leader. Their senior management mapped out a response to the company’s problem that included two approaches which they hoped would both strengthen their market share domestically as well as stimulate growth globally.

They entered into partnerships with a satellite communications firm and a wireless provider to establish anytime internet access for its small business owners as well as provide video and broadband capabilities to its residential consumers. They identified cost-cutting measures in India and Ireland that would reduce their expense for handling calls by 40% but would result in possible large employee losses back home (University of Phoenix, 2004).

They created a plan but did they think it through? Did they consider all the alternatives or effects of their plan on all stakeholders? Did the plan address long-term goals? Global management had stated in the past that their competitive advantage came from their loyal employees (University of Phoenix, 2004). How did this plan reward that loyalty? Did it? Did the company have a responsibility to do so?

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

Global’s myopic view of the short-term fix (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Guenther, 2001) failed to identify and address the long-term effects on domestic productivity and morale. It was only after they presented their solutions to the Board and they were approved that they realized they needed to have a plan in place to address the concerns of the Union and even decided to contact the Union. They faced the possibility that some of their best and brightest people could become unsure of the company’s vision and be picked off by competitors thus leading to an overall reduction in productivity and morale in the wake of uncertainty.

Global was not prepared for Union response to the downsizing effort before they presented their strategy to the Board especially since the Union had so recently conceded to reductions in their health and education benefits in an effort to stimulate Global’s finances (University of Phoenix, 2004). By not doing so, they had to scramble to put measures in place just days before announcing their intentions and Union/Business relations suffered as a result.

A distributive negotiation is defined by Kinicki & Kreitner (2003) as, “One in which one party gains something and the other party gives something up” (14, pg. 503). The concept is often described as a “win-lose” negotiation (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). Maria, the Union rep, first heard about Global’s plans from her governing board. Her relationship with Global has been a very positive one that goes back 10 years but the company’s recent negotiation of a reduction in benefits (University of Phoenix, 2004) and now its failure to notify her of their pending strategy before presenting it to their Board for acceptance has made her look foolish and uninformed in the eyes of her peers. She believes that her relationship with Global now means nothing and that the Union was simply sacrificed for Global’s gain. Global reduced its overall costs; the Union conceded jobs and pay.

Kinicki & Kreitner (2003) stated, “Conflict is a growth industry.” “Most companies aim to minimize it but the best companies learn to harness it to spur creativity” (14, pg. 484). Our readings define two types of conflict. Functional conflict supports the goals of the organization (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). Dysfunctional conflict hinders organizational performance (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). Global created a dysfunctional conflict between itself and the Union. By not discussing strategy with Maria prior to Board acceptance, Global left the door open to a potential reduction in morale and a feeling of alienation amongst once loyal employees. The subsequent drop in productivity and pending Union lawsuit will most likely stall any efforts to grow domestically.

Finally, it appears from the scenario that Global failed to follow the 6-step decision making model outlined in the reading. They identified their problem but did not brainstorm or divide into groups in an attempt to generate alternative solutions, had no contingency plan in the event the plan failed or needed to be modified and made their choice based on incomplete information without considering its effects on all stakeholders. They went with the first solution they created that appeared to meet the needs of their goals. This form of problem-solving is known as satisficing (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2003). They did evaluate their decision with a quantifiable goal of 40% in reduced costs but without any additional solutions to measure against, how do they know this decision was the best one?

Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical Dilemmas

Globals’ Board and stockholders witnessed the company’s stock drop from $28 a share to $11 a share over a three year period (University of Phoenix, 2004). The Executive Team, under pressure from the Board to find a solution developed a strategy to address Global’s growing needs but when it came time to present the strategy to the Board, Katrina failed to advise them that they had not yet discussed their plan with the Union and the Board did not ask (University of Phoenix, 2004). Was this ethical? Was it not the right of the Union to be included in these meetings? Did the Board or Katrina