A. MAIN ISSUE
Should Shirley simply moderate the debate or recommend a course of action?
a. How Shirley can give recommendations and earn the acknowledgement of all stakeholders involve?
B. FACTS OF THE CASE
The CFO of a plastics company has been asked to moderate a heated internal debate over a revolutionary technology. The head of R&D thinks the company should use it to break into a whole new industry, while the VP of the firm's most profitable unit believes it's a pipe dream that should be abandoned. The company's future could be riding on the decision. Is it time for the CFO to stop facilitating and take a strong stand promoting one choice over the other?
Shirley Rickert –Chief Financial Officer of HGS
Carl Switzer – Chief Executive Officer of HGS
Scott Beckett – Vice President, HGS Oil and Gas Product Division Walter Albright – Vice President, HGS Research and Development Jerry Tucker – Senior R&D Scientist of HGS
Brian Hanrahan – Senior Financial Analyst of HGS
D. COURSES OF ACTION
1. Shirley should take side with Scott Beckett in not considering selling Plastiwear products which will open the company’s door to the apparel industry. 2. Shirley will join Walter Albright’s team with the objective of pursuing the new business, the company’s entry to the apparel industry. 3. Shirley and her team will take time to conduct extensive research and data gathering whether or not the company will open its doors to the new apparel business.
* It can be seen on the case that the CEO, Shirley’s boss, assigned her a tough and challenging role being a moderator between 2 top executives on argument on the idea whether or not the company will pursue its direction to Plastiwear apparel business. There have been some challenges with regards to Shirley’s position on where to stand and which party she will give her vote. Scott Beckett has a point that there are many risk...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document