Abstract
Power and authority have become an important tools to influence employees in an organization. Especially in case of leadership styles, different types of authoritarian attitudes can have different types of impact on employee performance and their morale.
This paper attempt to answer three questions based on the case of BrandMaker.
Ques 1. What are the Key Challenges to be addressed by CEO Tom Morris and his management team at BrandMaker.
Ans. The key challenges before Tom Morris and the team are:
- The power struggle developing at the top of the company
- Confusion and disagreement regarding the consolidation regarding EAD( European Advertising Division) and CIM ( Corporate Identity Marketing)
- Changing clients' needs
- Cultural differences that exist across the Europe
In 2001, BrandMaker got merged with Hanratty, Babson and Cooke thereby making the world's 4th largest entity in marketing, advertising and promotions. As the merger increased the business to a great extent, some 'niche' areas including corporate branding were kept under a separate name, CIM.
Working separate from mainstream business, CIM has worked well since then. However, situation got changed with the retirement of John Goodwin as the head of the entity. It vacated the top position thereby raising the power struggle among seniors. Different views were put forward to handle the situation. Some advocated for an outsider, while some opposed that idea.
Carlos Cramer, the director of EAD, proposed the consolidation of these two entities with force. Again, others members were not in favor of this idea. It was because of the fact that two entities were entirely different from other geographically as well as functionally. While CIM activities were based in London , the majority of business was done in US. In contrast, EAD was more active in European countries.
Views were divergent and unclear regarding future operations of CIM. It literally presented a dilemma before Morris and team about handling the issue. Obviously, the CEO would not desire to let go the key part of the team under Cramer by consolidating these two divisions. On the other hand, reasons put forward by Cramer for consolidation seemed convincing . He presented his case as reducing the cost of operations, knowledge transfer between the divisions and expansion of core business. These ideas looked lucrative to many team members.
This was the major challenge before Morris and team. The next issue that was haunting them was changing customers' requirements and cultural differences existing across Europe. No doubt, there is turbulence in advertising sector and needs of clients are changing frequently. With viewers able to screen out breaks during programs, there is a need to innovate better ways that can deal with changing customers' preferences.
Last but not the least, cultural differences have always been a challenge for an organization and BrandMaker is no exception to it. It needs to be seen how the management will respond to the needs of people who are quite different in culture and thinking.
Question 2. What are the possible implications of power struggle developing at the top of the company for the future of Corporate Identity Marketing Division?
Answer. The possible consequences of power struggle are as follows:
- Misunderstanding and confusion among members leading to lack of focus and productivity
- Hiring of a person not well suitable in handling CIM division
- Consolidation of EAD and CIM leading to mismanagement and overlapping
- Consolidation of EAD and CIM leading to reduced cost and knowledge transfer
Theoretically speaking, power struggle hampers the smooth functioning of an organization by changing the focus of members. Same is happening with BrandMaker. There has occurred a dilemma on how to end this power struggle. If CIM is merged with EAD, the division may lose its independence and profits. Moreover, if it has been functioning well separately, the consolidation doesn't seem to be very promising. There are bleak chances that the organization will get benefitted from reduced cost and knowledge transfer, as proposed by Cramer, possibilities are really bleak and this decision will change the entire structure and culture of the company raising further challenges for management and the CEO.
If CIM is not merged with EAD, the management will have to look for the right person to direct it. Continuation of this power struggle for long will only affect the organization negatively.
Question 3. What, should the CEO, Tom Morris, do to turn the conflict into opportunity?
Answer. Conflicts are the reality of business operations these days. The major conflict of ideas BrandMaker is facing related to the future of CIM division. Members have divergent views and Tom Morris can't afford to let these opinions as they are. If they persist for long, friction and misunderstandings among members may crop up thereby affecting organizational objectives.
The best thing Tom Morris can do is to facilitate the way towards a healthy and fruitful discussion about the issue. He should analyze:
- Cultural and mindset differences among members
- If there is resistance to change or avoidance to change
- How different decisions regarding CIM will affect the organization differently
- The priorities and manage them in deadlines keeping in view demands and resources
After analyzing these aspects, he can float the ideas among members so that they can understand each others' point without contradicting for no reason. The best way to handle differences is - accommodating best possible ideas and make solution from them. Thus, the CEO needs to analyze that what can be the best solution out of different diverging opinions. He should brood over implications of different activities that can be undertaken. For instance, what can be the consequences if CIM is merged with EAD?
The gist is - it's the time to look for SWOT analysis and act according to that. If Tom Morris can bring in the best of ideas, nothing can be the better way of turning conflicts into opportunities.
Reference
Banahan, E. (2007). Leadership & Power. Business Leadership Review , 1 -10.
