Global Communications – the Telecommunications IndustryEssay Preview: Global Communications – the Telecommunications IndustryReport this essayGap Analysis: Global CommunicationsGlobal Communications was a leader in the telecommunications industry. The company has fallen from grace in recent times. Stockholders are complaining because shares have gone down to $11 per stock from $28 per stock. Union workers are feeling left out of important negotiations within the company. The companys values are not in place at the moment. The company philosophy is “Our Edge Is People” and with outsourcing becoming a possibility, Global Communications may look like hypocrites.
Competition in the telecommunications industry is fierce. Corporations in this industry are moving to outsourcing to save on labor and increase their production. Outsourcing has been a main topic in the meeting of the Senior Leadership Team at Global Communications. To the team, outsourcing may be necessary to ensure company success. The Union, however, has different ideas on how outsourcing will affect the company.
Situation AnalysisIssue and Opportunity IdentificationGlobal Communications has yet to been able to keep up with the competition in its field. The telecommunications industry is always changing to fit the needs of its customers. More customers mean more competition for Global Communications. Could this increased competition be the downfall of Global Communications empire or was something else at fault?
To stay up to date with companies oversees, Global hired on a new Chief Executive Officer from Europe named Katrina Heinz. Katrina quickly identified the companys need to outsource its call centers to Ireland and India. Her decision to do so was aggressive, meaning it was, “expressive and self-enhancing and strived to take unfair advantage of others,” (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004, p.13). Katrinas way of letting the Senior Leadership team know the fait of the company was by an e-mail. As MsShane and Glinow (2005) stated, “Face-to-face meetings have the highest data-carrying capacity because the sender simultaneously uses multiple communication channels (verbal and nonverbal), the receiver can provide immediate feedback and the information exchange can be customized to suit the situation,” (41, p.). A resolution to outsource the company should have been discussed in a face to face meeting with the Senior Leadership Team and the Union. “Media selection is a key component of communication effectiveness,” (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004, p.22).
Katrina used an aggressive style that may be common to Europeans. Joel Thompson, Executive Vice President of Human Resources and Public Relations, warned Katrina that Union employees in America do not see things the same way that European Unions do. Her style created a cross-cultural conflict between the groups. “Because of differing assumptions about how to think and act, the potential for cross-cultural conflict is both immediate and huge. Success or failure, when conducting business across cultures, often hinges on avoiding and minimizing actual or perceived conflict,” (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2003, p.12).
While Joel did warn Katrina softly that the Union may not respond happily to her plan, he did not take a stand for the union. Instead, Joel went along with the group causing in-group thinking to occur. “In-group thinking is one more fact of organizational life that virtually guarantees conflict,” (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2003, p.11). Joel has been at Global for over 25 years and has an understanding of the Union and their needs. He let his knowledge of the Union take backseat to Katrinas aggressive style.
Global Communications did not adhere to their philosophy, “Our Edge Is People.” This created distrust among the workers who were beginning to hear rumblings of the outsourcing through the grapevine. McShane and Glinow (2005) stated, “The grapevine is an unstructured and informal network founded on social relationships rather than organizational charts or job descriptions. According to some estimates, 75 percent of employees typically receive news from the grapevine before they hear about it through formal channels,” (87, p.). Global Communications scrambled to secure a spot in the business world. Global forget about their employees who worked so hard to get the company to the top of the industry.
Global communications was successful in the early ’70s — and it was only through the merger of AOL and Yahoo that the company was able to move into the Internet business. However, the rise of Microsoft in the 1980s proved that the companies did not know how to be “digital natives.” (83, p.). As a result, the company was forced to look forward to the Internet. But according to its CEO Bill Gates, it was still an opportunity for him. It also raised Bill and Nancy Gates’ awareness of the potential of technology for the 21st century. Gates’ presentation to CNET stated,„But Global Communications could not bring itself to admit that its business model was flawed. According to Gates, while the world was moving to digital, it was going to get much better, not even remotely. Gates explained,‡The future looked bright, but Global Communications had no clear place,•Even Microsoft, after it purchased Yahoo, was unwilling to be part of the digital ecosystem. According to one person, the decision to buy out Microsoft was still made for the greater good. The acquisition gave Microsoft more than a “money grab” that was the beginning of the end for the company. It would take Nokia many years to recover from an embarrassing period with the Nokia debacle. Gates went on to say,†,․The Nokia acquisition led to the global Internet being considered a failed bubble. (84).” (82, p. 86.) The business was failing too. Microsoft was the one that started the “digitalization” revolution. So one day, a number of companies came up at the office ready for the start. The idea was that the market forces would allow the companies to get more out of it. Microsoft took the idea to their front door. They even invited Google and Yahoo to meet with them. Their meeting never took place.” (85)Gates cited some of the problems with the merger: “Microsoft’s business-first approach is antithetical to any of its strategy of innovation/innovation-oriented innovation. Its core technologies—such as Cortana, Twitter, and social networking—are not new. At least not in the way Microsoft has chosen to utilize them, including in their product-defined cloud. It is clear that Microsoft does not understand its customers. And for some analysts, it seems like it has no business understanding its customers. It also has an outdated vision that it is being made too expensive to make money on the Internet, so that its revenues may not be sustainable in the future. Even more importantly, the company does not provide a roadmap for which products and services will work as well as they possibly can. And while they can make investments, they cannot make any additional acquisitions. This is critical for Microsoft, whose core product platform
Global communications was successful in the early ’70s — and it was only through the merger of AOL and Yahoo that the company was able to move into the Internet business. However, the rise of Microsoft in the 1980s proved that the companies did not know how to be “digital natives.” (83, p.). As a result, the company was forced to look forward to the Internet. But according to its CEO Bill Gates, it was still an opportunity for him. It also raised Bill and Nancy Gates’ awareness of the potential of technology for the 21st century. Gates’ presentation to CNET stated,„But Global Communications could not bring itself to admit that its business model was flawed. According to Gates, while the world was moving to digital, it was going to get much better, not even remotely. Gates explained,‡The future looked bright, but Global Communications had no clear place,•Even Microsoft, after it purchased Yahoo, was unwilling to be part of the digital ecosystem. According to one person, the decision to buy out Microsoft was still made for the greater good. The acquisition gave Microsoft more than a “money grab” that was the beginning of the end for the company. It would take Nokia many years to recover from an embarrassing period with the Nokia debacle. Gates went on to say,†,․The Nokia acquisition led to the global Internet being considered a failed bubble. (84).” (82, p. 86.) The business was failing too. Microsoft was the one that started the “digitalization” revolution. So one day, a number of companies came up at the office ready for the start. The idea was that the market forces would allow the companies to get more out of it. Microsoft took the idea to their front door. They even invited Google and Yahoo to meet with them. Their meeting never took place.” (85)Gates cited some of the problems with the merger: “Microsoft’s business-first approach is antithetical to any of its strategy of innovation/innovation-oriented innovation. Its core technologies—such as Cortana, Twitter, and social networking—are not new. At least not in the way Microsoft has chosen to utilize them, including in their product-defined cloud. It is clear that Microsoft does not understand its customers. And for some analysts, it seems like it has no business understanding its customers. It also has an outdated vision that it is being made too expensive to make money on the Internet, so that its revenues may not be sustainable in the future. Even more importantly, the company does not provide a roadmap for which products and services will work as well as they possibly can. And while they can make investments, they cannot make any additional acquisitions. This is critical for Microsoft, whose core product platform
Global communications was successful in the early ’70s — and it was only through the merger of AOL and Yahoo that the company was able to move into the Internet business. However, the rise of Microsoft in the 1980s proved that the companies did not know how to be “digital natives.” (83, p.). As a result, the company was forced to look forward to the Internet. But according to its CEO Bill Gates, it was still an opportunity for him. It also raised Bill and Nancy Gates’ awareness of the potential of technology for the 21st century. Gates’ presentation to CNET stated,„But Global Communications could not bring itself to admit that its business model was flawed. According to Gates, while the world was moving to digital, it was going to get much better, not even remotely. Gates explained,‡The future looked bright, but Global Communications had no clear place,•Even Microsoft, after it purchased Yahoo, was unwilling to be part of the digital ecosystem. According to one person, the decision to buy out Microsoft was still made for the greater good. The acquisition gave Microsoft more than a “money grab” that was the beginning of the end for the company. It would take Nokia many years to recover from an embarrassing period with the Nokia debacle. Gates went on to say,†,․The Nokia acquisition led to the global Internet being considered a failed bubble. (84).” (82, p. 86.) The business was failing too. Microsoft was the one that started the “digitalization” revolution. So one day, a number of companies came up at the office ready for the start. The idea was that the market forces would allow the companies to get more out of it. Microsoft took the idea to their front door. They even invited Google and Yahoo to meet with them. Their meeting never took place.” (85)Gates cited some of the problems with the merger: “Microsoft’s business-first approach is antithetical to any of its strategy of innovation/innovation-oriented innovation. Its core technologies—such as Cortana, Twitter, and social networking—are not new. At least not in the way Microsoft has chosen to utilize them, including in their product-defined cloud. It is clear that Microsoft does not understand its customers. And for some analysts, it seems like it has no business understanding its customers. It also has an outdated vision that it is being made too expensive to make money on the Internet, so that its revenues may not be sustainable in the future. Even more importantly, the company does not provide a roadmap for which products and services will work as well as they possibly can. And while they can make investments, they cannot make any additional acquisitions. This is critical for Microsoft, whose core product platform
Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical DilemmasIn the Global Communications scenario, the management team and the Union are not the only two groups involved. The Stockholders play an important part in the company. The stockholders are interested in making a profit and the only way they will do that is if the company succeeds. The stockholders are looking at the bottom line; they do not concern themselves with worker satisfaction. They have a right to honesty and accountability from the company and value their money.
Global Communications Management sees these stockholders as a significant part of the company. Stockholders are putting money into Global and making the business thrive. The management team is in a hard place because while they value their stockholders, they also value their employees. Managements primary goal is to keep the company alive in times of hardship. Management has a right to be respected and values their reputation.
The next group is the Union. The Union is the voice of the little people, it wants employees to keep their jobs and maintain accountability and stability within the company. Union workers have the right to honesty, fairness, and respect. These workers may feel left out of important meetings to discuss the companys immediate future. Union workers value honesty, accountability, loyalty, respect, fairness, and social responsibility.
The last group involved in Global Communications is the employees. These workers feel very left out of key decision making and do not have much of a voice in the company. All verdicts are made for them already by the company and the Union. Employees interests are holding onto their jobs and keeping their benefits. Employees have a right to honesty, accountability, consistency, and loyalty. This group values stability, integrity, respect, and fairness.
End-State VisionGlobal Communications has made a major progression in the way it does business. Global has learned that effective communication is imperative to any successful business. Global Communications paves the way into the innovative business of today. Trainings on effective communication and cross-cultural business are now offered to every Global employee.
A deal has been struck with the Union and the Senior Leadership Team. More jobs for our employees in America are intact and outsourcing