The estimated reading time for this post is 3 Minutes
Program managers are expected to be complexity-based leaders, in order to manage the various elements of the enterprise, including stakeholders, processes, ideas, interdependencies, and culture (Curlee & Gordon, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the situation between Military Technologies Inc. and Guidance Systems LLC, in order to determine the best possible course of action. The essay sustains that long-term relationships between stakeholders are more important than immediate financial gains in the short-term perspective.
What Should Be Done?
The stakeholders involved in the aftermath of the decision include the company, the government, the supplier (Guidance Systems LLC), the alternative supplier (Seatech Industrial Inc.), the community, and the competing company as a hostile stakeholder (Curlee & Gordon, 2013). There are several ways in which this scenario could develop. First, if we assume that Military Technologies accept John Smith’s offer, and break negotiations with Guidance Systems LLC. This would harm the supplier (certainty), provide short-term gain for the company, harm the community (layoffs), and potentially harm the client (the US Military), as it would require time to negotiate a new contract with Seatech (Curlee & Gordon, 2013). Therefore, best case scenario – everyone gets hurt, except for the company and the alternative supplier. Worst case scenario – the proposition is a ruse, meant to break the negotiations between Military Technologies and Guidance Systems. If that is the case, the only winner is the competing company.
The alternative solution is to sustain the existing negotiated contract. It would keep all of the relevant stakeholders reasonably happy at the expense of potential extra revenue opportunities lost by the company. The prospective efforts of the competition to undermine Military Technologies Inc. would prove to be in vain. Finally, there is the option of re-negotiating terms with Guidance Systems LLC. There is the potential for negotiating a better price. At the same time, this would extend negotiations, resulting in the loss of company reputation, and indirectly harm the rest of the stakeholders. Based on this analysis, the second solution is preferable to the rest.
Should the Terms with Guidance Systems LLC be Renegotiated?
The terms agreed upon with the supplier company should not be re-negotiated, for several reasons. First, a verbal agreement was already achieved, which could be considered legally binding. Second, the information provided by John Smith is suspect at best, as the man had already proven himself to act in an unethical fashion, as illustrated by his sudden shift from Military Technologies to a competing company. There is no reason to believe in the sincerity of his intentions. Finally, the practice would serve as an example to all business partners in the future, showing that contract conditions may be renegotiated at any moment, based on hearsay and unproven information. It would significantly complicate negotiations in the future. Finally, extended re-negotiations are likely to cause delays in project delivery.
Communication with Stakeholders
When communicating with the company president, I will present the reasons for maintaining our current stance on the contract, as they are outlined in this paper. I will point out the potential risks and benefits to every solution and sustain that our current position, which came to be as a result of long and tenuous negotiations, is satisfying to the company, and the perspective of a new and better deal heavily influenced by our opponents is not a viable option. The communication with Edward Saturday would be brief, as I will simply have to reaffirm our company’s commitment to the previously-negotiated terms. Graham’s involvement in this discussion is unnecessary, as the chosen course of action does not require additional negotiating and is in line with his previous position on the matter. Jack Smith will be politely informed that his suggestion is denied, as accepting it goes against company culture.
Renegotiating terms is a risky prospect that may bring only short-term financial games at the cost of the loss of face and stakeholder harm. It will not be to the company’s benefit in the long term. Sustaining the existing terms is a safer, more responsible, and ethical solution.
Curlee, W., & Gordon, R. L. (2013). Successful program management: Complexity theory, communication, and leadership. CRC Press.
#university #college #student #education #students #study #studentlife #school #universitylife #collegelife #studyabroad #studygram #uni #photography #universit #love #instagood #instagram #graduation #motivation #covid #highereducation #memes #like #learning #science #bhfyp #campus #india #universitystudent