Storm or Change

M6A1: Case Study – Storm or Change
Name
Institution Affiliation
M6A1: Case Study – Storm or Change
Introduction
The East Street International Human/ Animal Rights Agency has an initiative that aims at incorporating contemporary marketing approaches. Consequently, the board of directors has to ensure that the selected advertising campaign is efficient and meets all the comprehensive needs and prerequisites of the agency. In the subject case, the board of directors is listening to a proposal that advocates for the utilization of direct mail, telemarketing, social media, television, and infomercials. Still, the proposal focuses on the most appealing factors of the organization’s work. The primary elements of the agency’s operations focus on saving pets and children experiencing the negative outcomes of trafficking and death row for animals.
Resultantly, the proposal’s prospects indicate that the advertising campaign should lead to increased donations with estimates of 6 million dollars. Conversely, the expenditures of the proposal are high, particularly for the processes of augmented advertising, mailing, and promotional costs for the staffs. Even so, the net gain is considerable and could influence development since it will experience a 20% augmentation and essential additional finances for the needy. Resolutely, given these possibilities, the board members have mixed feelings regarding the proposal with a significant number deeming the expenditure justifiable while others see it as a wrong approach towards marketing.

More so, some of them are undecided and are likely to favor the side with the strongest arguments.
Key Issues and Underlying Issues
The primary role of the board of directors entails ensuring that Easy Street International Human/Animal Rights Agency is subject to positive development. Therefore, all the members advocate for initiatives that will influence this growth and realization of the set objectives. However, given the subject proposal for a new advertising campaign, the board lacks alignment and agreement. More specifically, there exists conflict regarding whether the agency should proceed with the proposal for the new advertising campaign. The source of this conflict is that a third of the members this the expenditure is necessary and a third argues that the approach is wrong. Still, the last fraction of members does not support either side. However, their decisions might be based on how strong the arguments of the other sides are as the discussions continue.
On the other hand, these key issues have a negative influence on the proceedings of the agency, especially the values of the board (Hall, 2005; D’Amour et al., 2005). The lack of an understanding between the members of the board means that the agency still lacks a solid marketing strategy, which is contrary to the organizational values. Additionally, the conflict acts as a hindrance to the achievement of duties and responsibilities of the board members whose values ought to focus on what is best for the agency (Suter et al., 2009). Essentially, the lack of a solution will negatively affect the most appealing aspects of the agency, that is, rescuing pets and children affected by trafficking and death row animals. Consequently, the key and underlying issues prompt for resolutions addressing the resolutions and encouraging a move towards compromise.
Solutions Prompting Discussions and Free-Flowing Communication
Primarily, the case study indicates that the division and conflict affecting the board of directors emanates from the lack of effective communication among the members. The different sub-divisions based on what they deem best for the agency create an atmosphere full of tension and rivalry with the two opposing groups competing to show why their decision should prevail (Falkheimer et al., 2017). Therefore, the approaches utilized for countering the conflicts and disagreements should focus on creating a setting with effective discussions and free-flowing communications, mainly as the foundation for other probable solutions that would assist the board in addressing the prevalent issues (Goetsch & Davis, 2014; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2010).
The first step should entail formulating the foundation for the recognition and acknowledgement of why the board needs a mediator. In the case study, the conflict revolves around ethical issues facing individual members of the board (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2010). Therefore, it is essential to show the agency that the prevalence of a mediator is a positive contribution to the achievement of the predefined objectives, which are, deciding on the best advertising approach that speaks for the most significant aspects of the organization (Ulmer et al., 2017). Conversely, the implementation of a mediation strategy without the board of directors acknowledging the significance of the proposed resolutions would make the process more complex.
Secondly, the board of directors should be led in setting ground rules. More specifically, the consultant should lead all the deliberations. The formulation of the ground rules should apply in instigating the element of team dynamics where all members of the board play a part and ensure they comprehend every aspect of the rubrics (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). Essentially, given the subject issues, some of the rules should include urging the members to refrain from making generalizations, ensure they stick to the apparent problem and respect others’ opinions by listening and avoiding distractions and interactions. Notably, since the board of directors is already in a heated discussion, these ground rules will help in maintaining order and ensuring that all the proceedings of the meeting are done correctly (Seeger, 2016). However, it is essential that the consultant introduces other rules to the particular setting of the meetings. Even so, all the introduced rules should focus on the type of conflict and the typical scenarios that interrupt the processes attributed to effective communication.
Following the ground rules, the third stage should involve an introduction of the open door policy. Currently, the differing opinions from the three sides have resulted in an atmosphere of concealment, which has both physical and psychological implications (Reilly, 2008; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2010). The ideas that the proposal is justifiable or wrong have influenced segregation between the members of the board; an outcome that contradicts with their primary roles and ways of conducting business. The policy would advocate for an open plan environment with a clear understanding that every board member is part of the team thus being an effective way of removing barriers (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2010; San Martin-Rodriguez, 2005). Moreover, this will depict a message of transparency, which will be crucial for formulating trust and clarity. The open door policy will build on the established ground rules while simultaneously advocating for regular communication between all members of the board including those who are undecided about the proposal.
As the fourth level of the proceedings, the board members should practice two-way feedback (Hall, 2005; Sutter et al., 2009). In the existing situation, the board members have dissimilar perspectives regarding the new advertising proposal. According to one group, the approach is justifiable because it addresses the most appealing aspects of the agency and promises a considerable net gain. However, a second group views it as a wrong approach because its implementation will result in a 1000% rise in costs. Still, the third group is undecided given the perks and disadvantages of the proposed advertising approach. Consequently, due to these delineations of opinions, the two-way feedback is necessary for the provision of detailed and constructive arguments based on the beliefs and perspectives of the proposed approach (Falkheimer et al., 2017). It will form a platform where the board members can engage in multifaceted self-evaluations. Moreover, it is crucial that the retention of all the information provided involves the back up of a written record, mainly through task management frameworks (San Marti-Rodriguez et al., 2005).
Follow-Up and Contingency Plan
In conclusion, the best way for assessing whether the introduced solutions have been fruitful should involve examining any outcomes that indicate effective communication among the board members (Ulmer et al., 2017). Given the case study, such outcomes should entail minimized/no misunderstandings and conflicts in addition to augmented clarity and straightforwardness. Moreover, the approaches should create an atmosphere where the board members empathize with other people’s perspectives and more respective reactions (Goetsch & Davis, 2014). All these should be recordered to track the development and identify gaps in the comprehensive resolution.
Assertively, based on the gathered and recorded data, the board members should come up with a solution. The different ways to ensure effective communication ought to facilitate the airing of all grievances. Therefore, similar to the approach utilized for two-way feedback, all the members of the board should state what they think should be the ideal solution for the proceedings towards the proposed marketing approach (D’Amour et al., 2005). The consultant will take notes on the different propositions from the board members, which will apply in finding common ground. Eventually, all the members should agree to the resolution without any form of coercing into an agreement (Falkheimer et al., 2017). The solution to the problem should instigate the feeling that the board, as a singular constituent, has achieved its roles and ensure that the solution brings value to the agency.
References
D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for inter-professional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of inter-professional care, 19(sup1), 116-131.
Falkheimer, J., Heide, M., Nothhaft, H., von Platen, S., Simonsson, C., & Andersson, R. (2017). Is Strategic Communication too important to be left to Communication Professionals?: Managers’ and coworkers’ attitudes towards strategic communication and communication professionals. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 91-101.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hall, P. (2005). Inter-Professional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Inter-professional care, 19(sup1), 188-196.
Hellriegel, D & Slocum Jr., J. W. (2010). Organizational Behavior. 13th ed. South-Western College Pub.
Reilly, A. H. (2008). The role of human resource development competencies in facilitating effective crisis communication. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(3), 331-351.
San Martín-Rodríguez, L., Beaulieu, M. D., D’Amour, D., & Ferrada-Videla, M. (2005). The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of inter-professional care, 19(sup1), 132-147.
Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-244.
Suter, E., Arndt, J., Arthur, N., Parboosingh, J., Taylor, E., & Deutschlander, S. (2009). Role understanding and effective communication as core competencies for collaborative practice. Journal of inter-professional care, 23(1), 41-51.
Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2017). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Sage Publications.