CENTURIAN MEDIA, DOING THE RIGHT THINGS Case Solution And Analysis, HBR Case Study Solution & Analysis of Harvard Case Studies

CENTURIAN MEDIA, DOING THE RIGHT THINGS Case Study Solution

Introduction:

This case deals with the ethical dilemmas and the important aspects regarding the sustainability and profitability of the company, after the decisions taken by the CEO ‘Fowler’ of the cable television division of the company. Fowler got the charge and being an autocratic leader took all the decisions and responsibilities of the company in his hands. Irrespective of the views of the department heads and the management of the company, he wanted to sell their advertising inventory at immensely discounted rates to North park media (his ex. Company). There are many ethical issues that need to be valued when one is getting involved in a contract with his ex. Or previous company. Fowler having a dictatorship style and working in the capacity of president of the division did not involve any of the wise presidents, and the other important members of the company in decision making.And irrespective of the huge loss that company could face once they enters the contract, fowler is making a deal which could cause the company million dollars loss. Richard Bennett is of the view that this contract would cause the company to suffer from huge losses monetary, and in terms of credibility as well. Getting paid at discounted rates in the prime time of advertising would not serve in favor of the company, thus getting aware of all such implications.Bennett is with the view to seeking help from auditors, as he is one of the faithful employees of the company, while the whole of the division is not in favor of Bennett.

Normative Analysis:

Evaluation of Joseph Fowler’s behavior:

As per the analysis and the facts gathered from the case, Fowler is an autocratic kind of a leader, and his personality brings intimidation among the employees and staff of the company. He takes decisions and actions based on his own perspective and beliefs, without involving the voice of other staff members and the senior management of the company. In this age of technology and advancement, decisions imposed and not discussed could become a cause of disgrace, and might be dangerous for the overall objectives of the company.

Fowler took that decision to make a contract with North Park Company without considering the efforts,of the employees to reduce the inventory rate of advertisements and overall reputation and profitability loss of the company as well. As in the prime time, the company could earn quite a lot more than being in the state of contractual relationship with the north park. Current commitments are also compromised and cannot be fulfilled, resulting in penal action against the company.

Here is the involvement of conflict of interest, Fowler has his stake in the north park as he was working previously in the capacity of CEO in the north park, and also has some holding in the company. He wanted to maintain or either increase his state by selling the inventory in more discounted rates than the company could already fetch from market fairly. He is prioritizing his own interest over the company’s best interest.By making the decision irrationally and illogically without having concrete proofs of the favorable results.

Not involving moral psychology and self-beliefs, it is clearly evident that the decision taken by fowler would not go in the best interest of the company, because there is a loss of integrity of customers and loss of profits as well. Without considering emotional conscience, the decision is not apparently correct. Motives are not for the interest of company, but for the personal interest of Fowler. Moreover, there is no fairness and right of the decision given to the subordinates to raise their concerns and make their recommendation to the president. There is no culture of democracy and equal power of decision making in the department. As a consequence, there would be a loss of commitment and satisfaction from work of employees and leads to overall non-profitability of the company.

On the other hand it can be looked by this as well, if fowler make the favorable terms of contract with north park, it would be in favor of both the companies, being the retrospective CEO of North park it was not so much difficult for him to make reasonable terms of contract with the company.Rather than fulfilling self-motives, thinking about his corporate responsibilities towards his company.And making decisions for the betterment of company by either making favorable or profitable terms of contract or do not enter into such type of contract.

Consequences of the deal:

The deal if happen would bring more negative and adverse consequences for the company, than the long-term sustainability, as has been understood by some of the employees and Reilly as well.

The consequences of the deal can be elaborated as under.

The overall loss of profitability of the company, as selling inventory advertisement in more discounted rates than the fair market discounted rates.
Loss of corporate social responsibility, by putting at stake the contracts already made with the other customers and stakeholder.It will lead to the loss of company’s reputation and penal action against the company in terms of monetary amount as well.
Loss of employee motivation and satisfaction, employees would become disinterested in working with enthusiasm for the company, because their views are neither taken nor appreciated by the president. There would also be a chance of layoffs in the case of the question against the decision of the president as the history shows.
There would be a loss for both internal and external stakeholders, internal in terms of loss of equity and fairness in decision making, and external in terms of the integrity of the company and its corporate social responsibility for stakeholders.
There would be not only ethical loss of duty, but also a monetary loss was as well seen by this prospective deal. Ethically it is against the favor of the company, and in terms of loss of money, it must not be appreciated to be done.
Here also comes the duty of fowler to be loyal to his work and his position granted to him by his close friend. He is not taking his responsibility in the right way, and making the decision by compromising his duty of loyalty to the division and to his friend as well. He is not putting due care to the matter and making the condition worse for the vice presidents of cable division. Loyal employees, for instance, Richard cannot be able to agree to his take, because he can foresee the company’s loss and loss of credibility as well............

This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.