Part 1
To improve the internal business process in BOLDFlash Mobile Division, it is necessary to ensure that all units cooperate to achieve common goals and adhere to a shared vision. It is only possible if the heads of these units understand each other’s working process and the limitations inherent in it, which requires effective communication and collaboration. A combination of e-mails, memos, and face-to-face meetings with messages specifically tailored for target audiences is likely to improve the business process and promote communication and collaboration in BOLDFlash Mobile Division.
Target Audience
The target audience of the communication is the senior management of the Mobile Division. It includes heads of units – Kevin Cheng, Karl Melzer, Kavita Patel, and Chip Bryant, as well as Roger Cahill, a General Manager (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Developing efficient communication requires understanding the backgrounds of the target audience and tailoring messages accordingly (Gwynn, 2017).
Cahill’s background is that of a scientist, but not a leader – he possesses extensive scientific expertise, but little knowledge of organizing people to achieve common goals (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Cheng was the manager of the Shanghai plant before being promoted to department director (Beer & Shelton, 2012).
Patel has also received a recent promotion and previously worked in the Consumer Division (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Bryant is a long-standing head of the sales department with considerable experience in the market, but not much expertise in the technology he sells (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Melzer is an experienced scientist, but has a propensity for research for its own sake rather than business yields, as noted by some of his colleagues (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Communication’s intended message should account for these backgrounds to be effective.
Message
The intended message of the communication has to be different for the General Manager and the department directors with high technical expertise, and the managers with low technical expertise. Cahill has been noted to employ his vast technical expertise regardless of whether it helps his subordinates to understand their tasks. Patel notes that he can talk for hours about new technical decisions, but it does not help with her forecasts as the Director of Marketing (Beer & Shelton, 2012).
One may interpret Cahill’s propensity to engage in technical details as a personal objective not conducive to the common aim of the Mobile Division – a frequent contradiction in management teams (Hedman & Valo, 2015).
Therefore, for Cahill, the intended message is not to focus too much on the technical and technological aspects of any given issue, but limit himself to setting clear and precise tasks for his Department Directors. This message would be important for the recipient due to his position as a General Manager, and the organizational agenda of the Mobile Division oriented on better performance in all its departments.
According to his colleagues, Melzer demonstrates much the same problems as Cahill. Bryant points out his propensity toward research for its own sake and the tendency to stay “up in the clouds” (Beer & Shelton, 2012, p. 6). Additionally, his accusation that Marketing fails to find buyers for product variations likely means that Marketing lacks the knowledge to present these products to consumers effectively (Beer & Shelton, 2012).
Thus, the intended message for Melzer is to provide concise descriptions of the features of new products and their defining features in simple language accessible for non-high-tech audiences. This message would be important for the recipient because it would promote a better understanding of the problems his department faces when interacting with Marketing as well as the ways to avoid such misunderstanding.
The main downside of the Sales department is not being aware of the limitations of other departments and pursuing the narrow departmental goal of increasing sales regardless of implications. Cheng mentions a deal struck without the consultation with Manufacturing that led to the system overload in the factory in an attempt to meet increased production requirements (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Once again, one may interpret it as a contradiction between departmental and common goals (Hedman & Valo, 2015).
Therefore, the intended message for Bryant is to consult manufacturing representatives not to make deals that harm production in the long run. This message would be important for the recipient because it highlights how pursuing narrow departmental agenda undermines the ability to manufacture products and, consequentially, make sales in the long run.
Other departments often accuse Marketing of producing too much paperwork and too few results. Cheng mentions not even writing Marketing reports due to their sheer number and size (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Thus, the intended message for Patel is to be as concise as possible in the departmental reports to cover the essential points in simple and clear language. This message would be important for the recipient because it would not only increase the efficiency of the communication between her department and other departments but also clarify the role and mission of Marketing.
Manufacturing could also benefit from better communication, especially with Product development. Cheng opines that providing production lines to Product Development for product testing hinders manufacturing itself (Beer & Shelton, 2012). However, not testing new products rigorously enough would maintain the relative isolation of Product Development and its propensity for research for research’s sake.
Therefore, the message for Cheng is to pay greater attention to Product Development requests to run trials of new products. This message would be important for the recipient because, as a specialist with extensive technical background, he should understand the utmost necessity of testing products before beginning to produce and market them in earnest.
Critique
Delivering the intended messages via a combination of e-mails, memos, and face-to-face meetings should be successful in reaching the target audiences and impacting them. Memos from Cahill outlining specific, brief, and clear instructions for each of the departments instead of going into technical details would help to avoid unclear communication and misinterpretations of orders (Frese & Keith, 2015).
E-mails exchanged by departments – such as concise estimates by Marketing, easily understandable descriptions of product features by Product Development, or consultations between Manufacturing and Sales – will promote a shared vision of the common goals. These changes will keep the directors updated on the issues better than they currently are, constantly having to call for relevant information even during the leadership meetings (Beer & Shelton, 2012).
This better command of information would promote collaboration in the management team and improve the quarterly face-to-face leadership meetings.
Key Steps
- Identifying the issues existing in the organization
- Identifying the purpose of communication in addressing the issues
- Identifying the target audiences and their backgrounds
- Tailoring the intended messages
- Choosing communication methods
- Delivery
- Feedback gathering and effectiveness evaluation
Part 2
The existing practice of quarterly leadership meetings is subject to change based on the information provided above. The implementation of the guidelines would ensure the greater efficiency of the practice in promoting a shared vision and the understanding of common goals. Specifically, Cahill setting precise tasks for the departments of the Mobile Division would ensure better cohesion and address the concerns of the department directors.
It would promote better performance in Marketing, which stills struggles to define its unique mission, and Product Development, where Melzer expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a specific managerial position (Beer & Shelton, 2012). Thus, changing the already existent practice of quarterly leadership meetings according to the recommendations should improve the management’s results by delivering the intended messages.
Apart from that, changing the practice of quarterly meetings would also help in adapting it to the new leadership style promoted by Cahill. His predecessor Harrison was “perceived as an autocrat who fostered a compliant culture in which people protected themselves and their territory from his strong top-down directives” (Beer & Shelton, 2012, p. 1).
Cahill, however, is not as prone to leader-oriented communication, as exemplified by his decision to participate in quarterly meetings and promote teamwork, which autocratic Harrison did not do (Beer & Shelton, 2012). In terms of management theory, Cahill leans toward team-centric communication rather than leader-centric communication (Hedman & Valo, 2015). Therefore, changing the quarterly leadership meeting in the manner described above to promote active and even proactive participation of department directors would be conducive to his goals as a General Manager of the Mobile Division.
References
Beer, M., & Shelton, R. (2012). BoldFlash: Cross-functional challenges in the Mobile Division. Harvard Business Publishing, 4438, 1-10.
Frese, M., & Keith, N. (2015). Action errors, error management, and learning in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 661-687.
Gwynn, B. (2017). Getting to effective stakeholder communication. Web.
Hedman, E., & Valo, M. (2015). Communication challenges facing management teams. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(8), 1012-1024.