Finding the Best Organization Using A Table Chart Analysis

The 3rd assignment as posted in the Assignment links, asks that you write a paper, based on the case of McConnell Spice and the role for Charles Jackson, who faces relationship issues and an ethical problem.

Some of you may find it better to use a table (chart) analysis as a way to showcase your analysis.  This post gives you that option.

Schedule: Due Mar 9 at 11:59 PM

The factors needing analysis are in the table (chart) below.  Specific factors which help you examine reporting relationships, likely motivations and dynamics of ethics/trust are given.

After completing the table, you are asked to write a 1-3 page discussion.  The Guide for that discussion is the last section of this post.

Option for Assignment #3: 

Overview: 

The purpose of this assignment is to assess your understanding of managing difficult situations, which often include aspects of ethical behavior--what’s the right thing?  The case study of McConnell Spice will examine motivations, relationships, and trust dynamics as well as use of power or influence to plan for resolving the conflict. 

 

Keep in mind these tasks:

· The table below should be completed and include a 1-3 page  discussion section in a word document. Post to the course assignment link #3.

· There are notes at the close of the table which guide you to analyzing important factors.  Read carefully.

· The last section of this document is a Guide to the discussion. The goal for the discussion is think critically about factors that appear in the table. Pay close attention to the discussion topics listed as a guide for writing that section.

 

GUIDE to Completing the Table:

Complete the table (chart) below to identify important factors, at-a-glance.   Give the table a TITLE and include in your submission

 

	Ann McConnell, CEO	Board of Directors	Charles Jackson, Chief Inf. Officer (CIO)	IT Team	Vendors
Reports to--who is this person accountable to?
Directs or supervises who?
Does this stakeholder use positional power (See Note below)
What other forms of influence or power does this stake holder use? (See note below)
Identify likely level of relationship exchange to the CEO (see note below)	NA
Identify likely level of relationship exchange to Jackson, CIO			NA
Is this stake holder likely to be transparent? (see note)
Is this stake holder credible? (see note)
Does this stake holder seem authentic?
On a scale of 1 (low) to a 5 (high) rate the trustworthiness of this stakeholder
Likely motivation (See note below)

 

Power note: An overview of the different categories of power (influence) is found attached file “Resources”.  Scroll down the document file to locate.   Select the category or type of power that seems the best fit.

Relationship exchange note: (use of Leader-Member Exchange model)  also found in the “Resources” attachment-- Identify as “Stranger”,  “Acquaintance” or “Partnership” and the trust dynamics for the phase of relationship selected.

Transparent, Credible and Authentic factors are described in the  “Resources” document attached. 

 

Motivation analysis uses the “Commentary” from Content Session 8 and the notes found in “Resources” about  Mazlow’s Hierarchy.  “

 

GUIDE to Discussion Section: (About 1-3 pages)

· Describe the ethical conflict faced by Charles Jackson.

Identify three (3) issues that appear to contribute or cause the ethical problem Jackson 

faces.  Write one (1) or more paragraphs about these issues.

· Describe choices for actions that might appeal to Jackson.  Aim to identify two (2) or more.  Include at least one (1) advantage and one (1) disadvantage for each action.  Write two (2) more paragraphs about Jackson’s choices.   Back- up your thinking by using resources and add in-text cites.  Include a reference list at the close of the discussion.  Note: This action is your plan.

· Is there hope for building trust between Ann McConnell and Charles Jackson? What would need to happen? Explain your position in one (1) or more paragraphs.  Back-up your thinking.  Add in-text cites to your discussion and write a complete citation for the reference list.

· Place yourself in Jackson’s position.  What would you do--honestly?  Would that decision be ethical?  Why? Write at least one (1) paragraph.

 

Refining/Editing Your Document

· Read the grading rubric for the assignment--found in the assignment link (scroll down to the end of the web page or computer screen to locate). 

· Check to make sure all elements of the assignment have been covered.

· Read what’s written for clarity and conciseness.

· Contractions are not used in business writing. Do not use in this assignment.

· Paraphrase ideas found in articles and other research. Effective paraphrasing means the use of words from the author's brain. Aim to avoid using more than seven (7) consecutive words from a source document.  Add an in-text cite to signal or provide appropriate attribution.

NOTE:   Students are expected to understand the Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Policy and know proper citation of sources as specified in the APA Publication Manual, 7th Ed.

Case Study of McConnell Spice and Charles Jackson’s Ethical Problem

Charles Jackson is chief information officer (CIO) at McConnell Spice, a large corporation based in Maryland. While the company's consumer market is US-centric, raw materials are shipped to the company from many countries.  McConnell Spice's management is always looking for ways to increase productivity and speed things up when using its global suppliers.  Jackson as CIO is especially interested in adding an AI (artificial intelligence) directed software application (an app) that aggregates, produces frequent dashboards (summaries) of information to expedite global shipping tracking and planning.  He has been with the company for two (2) years and believes that the time is right for making a proposal to his boss, Ann McConnell, CEO.  Jackson reasons to himself that introducing new technology is consistent with the overall company strategy of being more productive.  Further, he has experienced a good working relationship with Ann, mostly driven by his analytical approach and effective use of his credibility for extensive, well-grounded research.  Jackson takes pride in his capacity to analyze thoroughly and make high-quality tech-based decisions. He is respected by his team--the evidence is in their loyalty and willingness to problem-solve.  But, Jackson does not perceive the need to add more interpersonal actions to being effective, and holds the attitude that the merit of the facts should speak for themselves when determining strategy. Jackson also likes a certain amount of independence for his management of IT.  Recently, Jackson came across an app that promises to cut shipping time by 20% or more. which will in turn reduce staffing needed for on-site production. To add validity to the app strategy, Jackson consulted informally with a colleague he trusts, a fellow IT director of another consumer product company. This director praised the use of the new software app for its role in expanding company competitiveness, and enthusiastically endorsed use of the software for McConnell Spice's needs. 

Jackson met with Ann McConnell and she, too, seemed enthusiastic.  They agreed he would research the app further using the resources of his IT team and then Ann would do a special presentation to the company Board of Directors so that the company as a whole, could have good understanding and be aligned for implementation of the strategy.  The use of the new app would influence many work units and should be rolled-out or implemented properly.

The 1st step was to introduce the idea of the app strategy to the Board of Directors.  Ann McConnell did so and everyone was enthusiastic to pursue the development of a project plan.  Next, she asked Jackson to investigate firms as potential vendors of the app.  One of the discussion points for making vendor recommendations was that Jackson would have good, solid information about the application's use and vendor capabilities for an AI app integration into an existing IT system -- McConnell and Jackson agreed that IT compatability must be assessed and that Jackson's team would make this research its priority.  They also set a schedule so that McConnell could present a detailed strategy plan to the Board for a decision next month. Jackson would attend this meeting and offer answers to questions the Board might have.

Jackson and his IT team worked intensely and their efforts included many long nights. But they met the deadline to identify three (3) major firms that Jackson believed could handle the work.  The proposals offered extensive details from the IT team for planning about how the interface of the software could happen.  He was really pleased with the team's thorough review of the app and their engineering details.  Jackson was also hopeful for work with the suggested vendors--any of the three would be strong candidates and could assure careful integration of the app into the existing system.  He looked forward to a thoughtful, carefully managed rollout.

 

Jackson quickly made an appointment with McConnell to go over the vendor proposals.  But he was surprised with what happened next. At the appointed time Jackson entered the CEO suite to find Ann McConnell's executive assistant, who asked for the document, said that McConnell was not available.  Instead, she would get back to Jackson within two (2) days. Disappointed with being unable to submit the findings in person Jackson returned to his team who was anxiously, eagerly awaiting news.  Jackson briefed the team and then sent them home as a small reward for all the extra hours they had contributed in the research/writing of their proposal.  

The next afternoon, McConnell called Jackson to her office and asked why Standard Systems, a small local consulting firm, was not being considered as a potential provider?  Jackson was more than surprised—Standard was known primarily for helping small companies computerize their payroll accounting.  Jackson was not aware that they had done any work related to a customized knowledge-sharing app for shipping globally.  Equally important he had no intelligence about Standard's experience integrating services into an existing system.  Jackson requested time to do additional research on Standard and McConnell agreed. 

 Upon further investigation into the company, Jackson learned that Standard was owned by the uncle of McConnell’s son-in-law. Fortunately, Jackson also learned that the firm had some but limited experience in more complex applications. 

But, McConnell seem to insist that Standard be included for possible consideration by the Board, scheduled in two (2) weeks. She had even dropped by his office to check on the progress of the vendor proposals--something she had not done in his 2-year career at McConnell Spice.

During the next two weeks, representatives from each vendor met with Jackson and his IT team to explain details of their services and gave demonstrations. Jackson had suggested that Ann and the Board of Directors attend these presentations, because the Board had been so enthusiastic about the original proposal.   But McConnell said they wouldn’t have the time and he, Jackson, would need to evaluate everything and make a recommendation. 

At the end of the series of vendor presentations, including Standard, Jackson prepared a final report evaluating the pros and cons of going with each firm and making his first- and second-choice recommendations. Standard was dead last on his list. Although the firm had some excellent people and a good reputation, Standard, according to Jackson's analysis, was simply not capable of handling such a large and complex project. Although he recognized that McConnell had her preference, he also believed that the facts supporting his vendor recommendations would "make the deal".  McConnell would agree with his analysis.

McConnell informed Jackson that the Board was meeting the following week.  He was to present his findings and decision to the Board for approval.  

Then McConnell shocked Jackson.  She said, “I know you agree with me and are for Standard .”  McConnell walked quickly away leaving Jackson devastated and appalled at the idea that the least effective company could get the job.

What does Jackson do? What is ethical?   What might be important motivators? Could Jackson use these motivators as resources to drive an effective IT strategy? Can he turn Ann’s mindset around? Is there a way to be ethical/trustworthy, given likely power dynamics between himself and Ann… between Jackson and his team?  What if he loses his job? Does he want to keep this job? -- Jackson thinks.