1. What is at stake for the business development function and for the company as a whole?
1) Sake for Business Development Function:
Due to managerial conflicts between 3 senior managers, original plan will not be fully developed or properly implanted.
As a result, integration as one will collapse if three senior managers do not communicate or work as a team.
2) Stake for a Company as a Whole:
Firstly the inefficient management will increase the managerial cost which leads to revenue loss and loss of future earnings growth opportunities. The weaker financial position might further lead the company losing its competitiveness in the global market.
In addition, the risk for running management inefficiently in a long term will be the collapse of the whole company. The cost here will be restructuring of the whole operations.
2. Why is conflict occurring? Even at the beginning of the acquisition, the structure of the company is already unclear and complex. Three different plants were independent companies and completely separated. Firstly, cultural conflicts between different companies and also among three management seniors have become a sever barrier for effective operations and communications for the management of the company. Grundy complained that Ananth’s Indian action-oriented operational style will not fit in with English plan/do/review style. Anath’s idea “hustle” does not meet agreement with Grundy and Scherrer. In addition, Scherrer complains that her expertise team in Canada does not work along well with Indianan team. The second issue can be addressed by the lack of trust between managers. As a consequence, they do not work as a team. Anath requires too much power in the team and his operational management is also considered as an aggressive
