Global Communications

Introduction

Competition in telecommunications has caused confidence on Wall Street to fall. Three years ago, Global Communications (GC) was trading shares at 28 dollars per share. The stock today is valued at only 11 dollars, more than 50% depreciation (University of Phoenix, 2008). In an attempt to remain competitive in this field, GC added some new features for their customers but again met competition.

The senior leadership of GC proposed a plan to their Board of Directors to realize growth through a more aggressive approach with a satellite provider to offer video services as well as a satellite version of broadband. The strategic plan however, came at a cost to the existing workforce. Cost-cutting measures to be used were believed to increase profitability by outsourcing technical call centers off shore to Ireland and India. This measure is projected to reduce unit costs for handling calls by nearly 40%. The outsourcing would result in many employees losing their jobs or require others to relocate with an average salary cut of 10%. These measures were met with resistance from the union at GC.

In this paper this writer will discuss alternative solutions that leaders at GC will implement that are developed by using an issue and opportunity identification. This analysis will also look at ethical dilemmas of the involved stakeholders and develop optimal solutions to help this company regain their competitive advantage in the field of telecommunications.

This process will also include an analysis of these alternative solutions based on a risk assessment and mitigation techniques and finally discuss the implementation phase and evaluation phase to determine success of the plan.

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

In an effort to reclaim a competitive advantage in the telecommunications field, Global Communications (GC), has developed a strategic plan using cost-cutting measures to improve profitability. GC lost their competitive edge when many other businesses started competing for the same business.

The plan to be used by GC could have been more carefully developed by first assessing the strengths and threats of their current operation through such means as a survey of their customers to determine what customers believed they needed from this provider. Adams (2007) discusses how through strategic planning a company’s ability to adapt and compete over the long-term is developed. Adams states that by listing core competencies and the competitive threat to each, companies can better determine how soon the competition can catch up. GC has already recognized that despite their previous efforts, competitors for the same market have caught up to the services they offered and surpassed them. With technology demands from consumers ever increasing, the success of the plan is not guaranteed.

Part of this strategic plan includes conducting a risk analysis that would benefit the company’s leaders in managing risk. “Good decision makers prefer to manage risk” according to Bateman and Snell (2004). Bateman and Snell further state this means that while leaders accept the fact that consequential decisions entail risk, “they can do everything they can to anticipate the risk, minimize it, and control it” (2004).

GC has attributed their competitive advantage to loyal employees. When GC failed the opportunity to include all stakeholders in this plan, confidence was lost in the company.

Maria Antez had been a key player in recent contract negotiations between GC and the Technologies Workers Union and has been the liaison between these two groups for 10 years. In the last negotiations, she was successful in convincing the union to accept a contract that would result in reduction to health and education benefits. She informed the union that these sacrifices were necessary for the company’s long-term growth. GC failed to include Maria in developing this new plan which has now caused her to lose face with the union. The union now believes that the effort to reduce benefits and now take away jobs to offshore markets is an unethical move by the company and an attempt to manipulate around current contract conditions. If GC had included more stakeholders in the planning and strategizing steps, they would have used the concept of managing functional organizational conflict. Kreitner and Kinicki tell us that learning to manage conflict is a critical investment in improving how we, our families, and our organizations adapt and take advantage of change. Although they believe managing conflict well does not insulate us from change, nor does it mean that we will always come out on top or get what we want, effective conflict management helps us keep in touch with developments and create solutions appropriate for new threats and opportunities. Alternatively, those seeing a conflict as an opportunity and a journey will tend to be more positive, open-minded, and constructive. (Kreitner, Kinicki, 2004).

Using a group decision making process also has the advantage of improving both the quality and acceptance of a decision. Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, (2002), believe that groups tap greater pools of knowledge and provide a more diverse perspective. Kreitner and Kinicki (2004) further believe that outcomes of this process can build stronger relationships enabling conflicting parties to build bridges of goodwill and trust.

McShane and Von Glinow describe the necessity of the group decision making process further by stating that “individuals rarely have enough information alone to make decisions on the complex matters facing businesses today. Instead, problem solvers require information from co-workers, subordinates, and anyone else with relevant information. In other words, effective decision makers need to communicate.”

“Programmed conflict raises different opinions regardless of personal feelings,” according to Kreitner and Kinicki (2004). Contributors now will base ideas on relevant facts rather than on the basis of personal preferences.

GC continues to demonstrate the need to improve their opportunities in the field of communications. If they chose to discuss issues of importance in face-to-face interventions, they may have determined the antecedents of some of the conflict and taken steps to resolve the conflict before it became dysfunctional. According to the contact hypothesis, Kreitner and Kinicki (2004) state that the more members of different groups interact, the less inter-group conflict they will experience.

Stakeholder