Global Comm-Gap

Gap Analysis: Global Communications

Global Communications implemented a strategic plan to lower costs by outsourcing call centers globally. This globalization effort has presented some issues that could have been avoided if the company would have taken a different approach, had a less aggressive CEO, considered all of the stakeholders involved, and involved all members of the senior leadership team in decision making. Now to become successful globally, Global Communications must apply public relations efforts internally and externally.

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

Global Communications was focused on increasing their depreciating stock value and competing in a marketplace that had grown quickly and significantly. The senior leadership team created two plans to aggressively combat the economic situation by becoming global. The first plan, to build alliances and introduce new services has not presented any conflicts with the end-state goal and has not negatively impacted any stakeholders. The second plan, cost cutting measures to improve profitability, has presented conflicts to reaching the end state goal and has sacrificed affected stakeholders.

Under the direction of Katrina Heinz, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer, the team implemented an outsourcing plan that would move positions covered by a collective bargaining agreement to India and Ireland and significantly reduce costs. The team did not consider all of the stakeholders that would be affected by this change. Instead, the team only considered the final outcome. To successfully outsource the company would need to relocate employees and downsize the local call centers. The senior leadership did not consider these employees or stakeholders when planning to outsource. They did not plan a communication strategy, they did not weigh all of the available options, and they did not partner or even communicate with the labor union. This led to the company damaging previously positive relationships with the labor union. In effect, the public image of Global Communications has been affected.

Global Communications implemented the plan to outsource very quickly. The senior leadership team received approval to move call centers to India and Ireland from the board of directors only five days prior to announcing the plan publicly. In addition, the company had just commenced contract negotiations with the labor union and failed to communicate any portion of the globalization plan to the union representatives. This gave the public and the union the perception that the senior leadership team had known this information for a long time and consequently during the negotiation process. This perception makes the company looks as if it acted unethically by withholding pertinent information during negotiations. It looks as if the company immorally and intentionally devised the plan for globalization to employ cheap labor and layoff long term employees.

Members of the senior leadership team attempted to place value on the implications for the stakeholders from outsourcing. Sy Rodriguez, EVP-Consumer Marketing and Sales, asked that they devise a plan for effectively announcing the outsourcing plan. He asked that the senior leadership make this a priority. He was supported only by Joel Thompson, EVP-Human Resources and Public Relations. Heinz minimized his concerns and placed focus on getting the plan implemented and communicated as soon as possible. When Rodriguez brings up the fact that it takes more than a communication plan to implement an outsourcing and downsizing plan, Heinz suggests that they will do that later. Thompson informs Heinz that the Union may not be as comparable to those in Europe and may not react the way she is expecting, reasonably. Without full support of the senior leadership team, the plan for globalization is not implemented or communicated correctly resulting in harmed relationships and a negative public image for Global Communications.

The initial email sent by Heinz to the senior leadership team did not have a confidentiality statement attached. In effect the union liaison was aware of the plan prior from hearing from correct source. If the liaison would have heard the information effectively and from the best source, she may have retained more trust by the belief that she was informed at the earliest point in the plan possible. Being that she heard the information likely through the grapevine; she was able to correlate the withholding of information to the negotiations to the plan for globalization as unethical. Also, the public announcement of the plan was immediate and the company still did not have an internal relations statement released. The companies value for the people (employees) being the edge is not consistent to the actions that it has taken under Heinz’s directions. The actions contradict the values of Global Communications and allow the public opinion to form negative perceptions of the goals and direction of the company.

Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical Dilemmas

The board of directors for Global Communications has interests in market share and value for stockholders. These interests would conflict with Technologies Worker’s Union Board, who is interested primarily in the rights of the employee. In addition, the board or directors has a social responsibility and holds the right to approve all strategic changes in the company.

Technologies Worker’s Union Board has the right to hold Global Communications accountable to the collective bargaining agreement. This right conflicts with the right of Katrina Heinz to steer the company in the direction of achieving her main goal of success. In addition Katrina Heinz’s right to steer the company conflicts with the rights of the employees, who can choose Global Communications as their choice employer. It also conflicts