Global Communications Problem Solution

Problem Solution: Global Communications

Global Communications has the opportunity to provide broadband wireless to local customers plus they have realized a significant avenue to take to cut costs. Both of these together will help them to become a truly global company.

The workers and the company have had a good relationship in the past. Recently, the workers conceded benefits in order for the company to cut costs. Now the company has a new plan. Issues have arisen during their employment of their new found strategy. Workers and the union are not happy with the decision to outsource jobs overseas. The plan is in the final stages of implementation and not all the stakeholders were involved in the process.

The issues that have arisen from these opportunities are the possibility of ruining employee relations, alienating the union, bad public relations and possible legal ramifications.

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

The first opportunity for Global Communications I realized was in the realm of communication. Upon realizing that their company needed to make some changes, they undertook a process that to correct their path without getting feedback and input from all relevant stakeholders. “There's a real dilemma in public companies, where investor communication is a priority and employees hear about a merger or reorganization on their car radio while commuting to work. Once fear and insecurity are heightened, you waste a lot of time getting back to a place of order, understanding and productivity” (Fenson, 2000). Their plan was flawed from the start in this perspective.

Another issue leadership fell short on was maximizing in its decision-making process. The goal with maximizing is to basically please as many of the stakeholders as possible with decisions. Because of their flawed communication process, they did not seek all the stake holder’s desires and thoughts and therefore, left them out of the picture.

From my purview, the company’s strategic planning, at least on the long-term side, was non-existent. They had worked with the union in the not so distant past to cut costs via reducing the workers benefits. They went through with it. Now, they have a new plan to cut costs via outsourcing some of those same workers jobs that just had their benefits reduced. That tells me that the company either does not have an effective long-term game plan or they have one and are just not sticking to it.

Global Communications has created conflict due to their hasty actions to implement their plan without seeking all valid inputs from stakeholders. The union and the company management are conflicting because the union was left out of the process until the official plan was very much already set in stone. The workers have conflict with the company as well because they had just made concessions to the company with their benefits. Now, the company has seemingly reneged on their implied strategy.

Lastly, the workers commitment will now be in question and understandably so. Their concessions for the company relating to their benefits carried the semblance of doing their part to aid the company. By the company changing tactics and now planning to outsource some of those workers positions, this could be viewed as a lack of commitment on the company’s part and commitment is a reciprocal thing. I would think the workers would have a hard time now believing the company is looking out for their best interests which would result in lack of commitment to the company on the part of the workers.

Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical Dilemmas

The main stakeholders relevant to this scenario were that of Global Communications leadership, the employees, and the union. They all had valid inputs and concerns relevant to the company’s strategic direction and actions.

Obviously, the Global Communications leadership has the primary goal of making the company profitable. That is what they draw a paycheck to do. But in order to do that, they also have underlying responsibilities to uphold. They have to keep the company competitive in their communication industry through technological advances. Expansion through globalization is another way of ensuring profitability. No matter how technologically advanced a company is, if the company does not keep their workers satisfied and committed, they will have a hard time continuing to flourish in the global marketplace. As well, relating to the workers, part of looking out for their best interest is in marinating a good working relationship with the workers union. Lastly, public perceptions on how a company does business are paramount to their success. If the public thinks a company is unethical in the way they do business, they will not seek them out and that is derogatory to the primary goal of a company being competitive and profitable.

The employees of Global Communications were certainly a large stakeholder as well. Their jobs were at risk with the current strategy the company was going to employ. With their jobs being put at risk, this would effect their commitment to the company. When a company can validate that one of its priorities is job security for the workers, those workers will show their commitment. As well, a company needs to show the workers that they know who accomplishes this daily work and seek their input on company tactics and strategies. They should do this by ensuring vertical communication within the company. Training is paramount to the workers as well. If the workers are provided the most updated job knowledge and training they know they are a valuable resource in the industry but will maintain loyalty and commitment that empowered them to attain these skills and knowledge.

I believed the union to be the last major stakeholder in the scenario. Their job is to look out for the workers best interest and by not being in the communications loop of Global Communications leadership, this basically tied their hands. They were unable to have a voice on behalf of the workers. They could have provided possible alternative solutions to look at to avoid the outsourcing option that was now looming. Plus, I am sure the union took it as a slap in the face with the company basically changing tactics after their last agreement to cut the workers benefits. This also makes the union look invalid to the workers because they are viewed as not having an input on major impacts