Global Communications Gap Analysis

I am an adult learner attending Phoenix University online. My anticipated award date is July, 2008. My goal is to make a change in the Human Resources arena within Federal Government.

Gap Analysis: Global Communications

Cheryl W. Lawson

University of Phoenix

February 25, 2007

Gap Analysis: Global Communications

The telecommunications industry is very competitive. Global Communications (GC) is a company in the telecommunications industry that is looking to increase its revenue, and become a global leader in the market.

As GC takes the necessary steps to increase its place in the market, the Executive Leadership Team they encounter conflict with the employee union, and were faced with the ethical dilemma of identifying employees to layoff. The following is a discussion of the issues faced by GC and the opportunities presented that lead to a positive outcome.

Situation Analysis

Issue and Opportunity Identification

Global Communications (GC) is a telecommunications company that has experienced a remarkable loss of profits in the industry. In an effort to retain its competitor status in the market, the Executive Leadership Team devised a plan to be submitted to the Board of Directors that included two initiatives; the first being the introduction of new services to its small business and consumer customers, second, implementing cost cutting measure that they expect to improve profitability. These two initiatives are believed to make Global Communications a viable competitor in the market on an international level, and become a global resource in the telecommunications industry.

GC realized an opportunity to downsize their domestic call centers and relocate their expanding international call centers to India and Ireland; the relocations are expected to reduce unit call center cost by 40%.

Prior to submittal of the aforementioned strategic plan to the Board of Directors, GC's Executive Leadership Team entered contract negotiations with its employee union which resulted in a newly signed contract that would benefit the employee base and offer additional incentives to GC. The failure of GC to meet with union representatives to inform of upcoming changes certainly appeared to push aside the recently signed contract between the two organizations which created conflict. In order to have a more formidable relationship with the union, and avoid the possibility of any legal repercussions, GC had to seize the opportunity to rebuild a relationship of trust with the union, and offer alternative solutions to those employees slated for layoff as well as reevaluate their strategic cost cutting measures.

Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical Dilemmas

The primary stakeholders of GC are the Board of Directors, GC's Executive Leadership Team, and the employee union represented by Maria Antez. The Board of Directors held the perspective that GC was losing its place in the telecommunications industry and that changes were needed in order for the company to survive. The Executive Leadership Team, accountable to the Board and presented a strategic development plan that they believed would increase profitability, the Executive Leadership Team expected the support of their Board of Directors, and the loyalty of employees, but also faced the ethical dilemma of selecting which employees to layoff, and find a tactful way to present the information that there would be a reduction in salary for those who remained with the company.

As a union representative, Maria was committed to act in behalf of the employees, and to ensure that the terms and conditions of the recent contract agreement were upheld. When the new plan was introduced without the knowledge of the union it appeared to the union that the signed contract between the two parties was null and void. After learning of the new strategic plan, the union faced a major decision - should they support GC's plan, or remain committed to the employees; in the end, the union chose not to support GC's new strategic plan.

End-State Vision

As GC gains ground and realizes its goal to become a leader with global resources in the telecommunications industry, they will have reevaluated their original strategic development plan, with a short-term goal of reducing operating expenses which we be reviewed after six months, and a long-term goal of being able to introduce new products into its market scheduled to occur in nine months. GC now understands that decision making is the process of identifying problems and opportunities and resolving them. Balkin, D. B., & Mejia, L. R. (2002).

Putting forth valiant effort to ensure that problems they've incurred in the past would not arise again, the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) also went through managerial training with the concentration on organizational communications, decision making processes, and problem solving. As such, the ELT has requested that one of the board members is hired on as a consultant and also acts as a liaison between the Board of Directors and the ELT thereby having constant communication between the two entities.

The union has agreed to support the new strategic plan with the agreement that there be an on-site Shop Stewart who will serve as liaison between GC and the unionized employees. The Shop Stewart will be kept apprised of all decision making processes that will affect employees.

The new strategic plan included a six month cross-training course for current employees and has given them the option to work from their homes as an independent call center thereby reducing operating cost by an addition 45% which allowed employee layoffs to be minimal.

As a result of the changes stated above, GC will be able to meet its goal of becoming a leader in the telecommunications industry with global resources within the year.

Gap Analysis

Global Communications is facing several issues as they've already submitted the newly developed strategic plan. Without an effective communication process between the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and its employees, a barrier arose because there was no interaction between top management and employees, management did see the need to get out of their offices and meet directly with employees to understand what issues would arise with the upcoming changes, nor did they effectively communicate with the union. Kinicki & Kreitner (2004). There was also a communication