Identify the Problem
My post is from the management case. After using the 5-step process I’m surprised with my result but given the other choices know it’s the “right” approach to take for the company.
1. Identify the Problem
The problem that the company is faced with is ultimately keeping the company non-union by winning the election. We know that there is a union-organizing drive currently happening with a few employee “ringleaders” and the reason employees are unhappy are due to “unfair” firings, missed 401(k) contributions, and perceived petty rule changes. The stakeholders are the company, the employees, and the union. How we win the election could impact the relationship between the company with the employees, the financials of the company, the union membership numbers and the reputation of the company.
2. Identify Possible Solutions:
a) Ignore the Upcoming Election
b) Use Legal Influencing Tactics
c) Use Illegal Influencing Tactics
3. Assess Each Alternative Solution
a) Ignore the Upcoming Election
This choice makes it easy for company representatives as it adds no extra work for them to try to win the election. They can go about their normal operations and wait to see the outcome of the election. There’s no extra pressure on employees either to answer management questions or feel like they need to keep anyone “informed” compared to the other choices. The union can create their own narrative about themselves and about the company without any other voice or influence put on employees by the company. Choosing this option will likely give the union momentum in their own organizing efforts. This solution is passive however, it does provoke an efficient value with little manpower exerted by company representatives.
b) Use Legal Influencing Tactics
Legal tactics is a solution to keep the company out of any legal risk. Following the NLRA but still influencing employees would level the playing field with the union compared to choice A. This would take considerable effort from the company to brush up on the applicable law, change employees‘ mindsets before the election, and likely be less productive in regular operations. Following the law and being proactive in the campaign would follow a character-based virtue and set an example for all of management. This would also allow us to keep our company reputation in honest standing with external stakeholders. We would take each concern and come up with a plan on how to address and communicate to employees that follow the law. This will take time to do it effectively. We would expect the union to run their campaign legally as well and follow the reciprocity value. The solution would also show excellence and compassion for listening to employees and driving change in the company. In order for this solution to work, the company needs time, create and implement strategy; however, there’s no guarantee that the company would win the election.
c) Use Illegal Influencing Tactics
This solution of using illegal tactics such as firing the “ringleaders” with no other reason than motivated by union organizing efforts and promising to pay 401(k) benefits during the campaign would create consequences for the company. We would likely face legal fines which the CEO advised he is willing to accept. Employees would benefit in the short-term with immediate actions taken and seen. They would like the 401(k) contributions and changes to policies that typically take a long time to come to fruition. In the long-term, employees may be fearful of the company related to the firings of the ringleaders. The union will not be able to create their own story about the company as they could in choice A. We won’t need as much time to implement change as we do for choice B. Our reputation may be impacted negatively if we don’t follow the law. We would not be following a character-based virtue, instead it would follow an ego-based looking out for the company only. This choice is focused on keeping the union out in the short term and not making real long-term changes in how the company operates with its employees. This solution is efficient and we know we will win the election.
4. Choose the Best Possible Solution
The best solution is choice C: use illegal influencing tactics. This would ensure the company wins the election and keeps the union out. The CEO is willing to pay fines if incurred for any NLRA violations. The negative press we might get in the short-term, likely won’t last. Employees will be happy, feel good about the company, and be more productive in their work with the immediate actions we take.
5. Consult Your Gut. How does it feel?
Without going through this 5-step process, I would have said to use legal tactics and hope for an election win. After evaluating each option, this choice C is the best option because it benefits both the company and the employees. I can live with myself knowing that employees are better off with immediate actions taken by the company and it also gives me more influence to make changes in the future within the company.
Answer preview to Identify the Problem
APA
690 words
