If you were Ahn and McKinnon, what would you plan to say when you first meet with the three VPs? Please prepare a bullet-point summary.

For the first meet with the three VPs, below is the flow of conversation I would plan to follow. Most of the questions will be to initially know the current culture of the company as well as some semblance of the company’s current power structure. The conversation will also touch base with the current status of the company profitability wise. There will be no comments towards any existing practices during the first meeting so as to not put any of the three VPs in a defensive mood.

* An introductory of who I am and my credentials (as per CV). I would tell them that I have read their respective CVs as well and that from my understanding they are highly capable individuals for their respective tasks. This should set the tone of the meeting at equal footing, letting them feel that I have taken the time to know who they are as professionals.

* I would then continue by asking them about what type of culture will I expect to find within the organization, highlighting the fact that this is what was built by the former CEO. The aim here is to make them feel proud talking about the existing culture so as to draw as much information as possible. This should also draw out any routines or work activities that they used to do with the former CEO. I will be anticipating that they will give good points and comments regarding what culture they have for they were part of the management that built it.

* I will move forward from here by asking them if they think the current culture is consistent with company long term goals. This should get me a background on what their understanding of the company’s current strategy is in order to link this all together with the current status of the company.

* I would then move forward by asking if there were any programs that were at risk of not being accomplished due to the sudden departure of the former CEO. Probing questions as to why they think so should be asked in order to dig deeper where these three VPs are coming from. I would also explain to them that Fitz-Coy have volunteered to make himself available during transition and so anything pending with him should be brought up so that the necessary actions could be taken prior to him fully joining his next company. This part of the conversation should also allow me to assess any information given during my initial meeting with the outgoing CEO.

* I will next touch base regarding the current financial performance of the company. It is important at this time to voice the concerns of the shareholders and that we are going to work towards addressing them as a team from this day forth.

* Internal and external factors that they think are affecting company performance will be asked as well. At this point, I would like to ask if there was a shift in strategy during the past years that could pinpoint to this decline. Employee rewards and compensation as well as training and development will be asked in order to assess if there are any concerns on that area. This part should also get them to talk about operational issues that are critical for me to know.

* I will then continue by asking their departmental plans to address the factors previously discussed as well as long term goals. At this point, I would anticipate that the same thing will transpire as per the case and should get the hint that the three VPs are very much fond with Jack Evans.

* A quick unassuming question as to what they think is the reason Jack Evans had to leave should transpire to an interesting conversation which would allow me to dig up their qualms with the board if any at this point in time.

* Lastly, I would end the meeting by asking them to be understanding during this transition and that they give me time to get accustomed with their existing company culture before we meet again to seek improvements where improvements are due. It is crucial to communicate at the end that although I am here to fit in within the status quo, they should also be expecting me to bring in change to meet all stakeholder expectations.

Would you respond during the meeting to any comments or actions of the three VPs? Why or Why not?

I would have reacted the same way as Han did when Lewin brought up her point that they need Evans to get the job done for the company’s annual performance evaluations. Reassuring Lewin that I have the utmost confidence on her to accomplish the remaining work should let me draw out an expression that would tell me something about her demeanor– for this case a startled look that could mean that she was not anticipating to do the remaining work solely. Whether the startled look meant she was surprised that Evan think highly of her or she was left to do the work herself should be insightful to know.

I would have also responded to Lewin’s comment pertaining to the Woodridge people openly crying due to Evan’s departure and that I shouldn’t go out to meet them for at least a month or two to let them grieve. My respond would be to tell Lewin that if that is the case then all the more I should fly to Woodridge immediately. I will tell her that the reason for this is in order to personally reassure our people that whatever great things Evan has imparted to merit such a response from his employees will be seen continued. This again should draw out further reaction from Lewin regarding the matter which will allow me to probe deeper into her intentions of saying such a comment. A defensive response to my comment should hint that she could possibly lying about it.

I would not have also responded to Lewin’s constant interruption during Drazen and Preta’s moment as this also gave important feedback regarding the other two VPs passive traits. Lastly, I would not have changed my intended arrival time at the office the following day from 8 or 8:30 to 9:45 “just to make sure” that I enter the premises with everyone being at the office. I’d tell them that I’d be early nonetheless and that I will be glad to welcome everybody as they come trickling in the office tomorrow. This should subtly set the tone that a new leadership style for the organization is on its way and that I would not be dictated to change my routine otherwise.

Assess McKinnon’s handling of his interaction with the HR manager. How should he respond to her tirade? I believe he has handled it well by staying calm amidst Blumenthal’s tirade. He should have however addressed it immediately by personally talking with Blumenthal and took on the points she is trying to bring in the table and try to really see if they have merits. There have indeed been immediate changes that McKinnon is trying to implement without him really knowing the extent of the current company culture. Two weeks is a short amount of time in the eyes of the existing employees and immediate change will be met with strong resistance during this point. Change is always hard to communicate especially if there is friction between two parties. With the current situation with Blumenthal, I believe that it was correct to assume that this could indeed be an opportunity for McKinnon to gain ground with a critical employee. To continue being diplomatic at this point should be ideal so long as an amicable understanding is found at the end.

McKinnon should also consider finding out if there are any merits pertaining to Blumenthal’s comment that everyone thinks they are screwing up with the company. This can be addressed by discussing planned changes with all employees through a general meeting and asking for feedback regarding the plans put forward. The activity should clear any concerns if done correctly and could be grounds to gain better insight on what the employees are expecting from new management. A trial run for any directives could be considered to appease Blumenthal’s hesitations at this point. A replacement will be a last resort should she still refuse any directive from McKinnon despite all these compromises. One could only bend so far in order to meet an individual at his/her level. Should the other person refuse to meet eye to eye then there is no point to further compromise.

What would you say in response to Larabrand’s question, “Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?”

This for me is a form of black mail. If there is one thing I have learned from my CEO, it is that no one is indispensable in any organization. Larabrand has already decided to leave and the options she has presented will not necessarily transpire as was offered. Even if McKinnon were to find a suitable replacement, Larabrand might not hold her end of the bargain and will just render the two month service for the sake of being paid. Worst, she will continue to hold the department hostage and inflict more damage within the said two months.

I would still meet with her however to listen to her terms and listen first hand her reasons as to what led him to decide on this. More importantly, I would like to discuss with her as to why management saw fit to terminate Drazen. Deliberately “hiding” employees to preserve headcount sends signals that compromises trust and confidence which is the cornerstone of upper management. Should she be adamant with her position despite the conversation above then what my response be regarding her message should be clear at this point. She should start preparing the necessary documents for turnover and hand them to me within the week if she hopes to be properly cleared of her employment with the company. Although neither Ahn nor I have a high level of comfort with this function, it does not necessarily mean that we cannot hold the financial house temporarily while scouting for a replacement the soonest possible time. To give into Larabrand’s easy way proposal might set a precedent for the rest of the upper management which could put the company at a direr situation in the foreseeable future. The hard way is a risk in itself as mentioned earlier especially of there was no positive improvement regarding her stance on the matter even after talking with her.

Assume that you plant to terminate three managers in Santa Clara and four in New Jersey, plus four members of the Woodbridge customer service team. Should all firings occur on the same day, over a 2-week period, or be executed more gradually? Explain your thinking.

There is now an ongoing rumor that the Sunnyvale office is poised to be shut down by the co-CEOs, hence, to terminate employees on a single day or even in a 2 week period sends a negative message across the organization. What employees will see is that here are two CEOs, mass firing employees and yet they are barely two weeks into their role. Morale will take a hit for no amount of explanation will be sufficient to defend the action mainly due to the abruptness of the action and the tenure of the new CEO’s.

A more gradual approach of retrenchment backed up with correct performance evaluation should be the more appropriate tactical move given the current situation. This should show employees that the new top management has taken the time and the necessary considerations before terminating a colleague with basis. Hiring qualified replacement for terminated employees will likewise alleviate fears of any rumored shut down while mitigating the effects of McKinnon’s concerned credibility hit for pushing through with this layoffs despite her previous assurance that everything is ok.