This week has been both an interesting and learning experience for myself and my fellow group members. Last week we did exceptionally well and were all over the moon about our performance. In a way we almost thought we were beginning to understand how all our decisions would impact different departments and assumed we could almost predict the amount of revenue we would generate. We grew confident that we were running our company with a great strategy and our only problem last week was around the limited demand within our market due to our local competitors not performing, which indirectly impacted our performance potential.
Our problem this week, builds on this fundamental problem. The leading teams were starting to pull far ahead of us, purely because they were in far more competitive markets and could supply double the numbers we could based on the capacity they could output. Even if we created a larger capacity, because of demand within our market, we may not be able to sell the excess supply. With this in mind, we decided that we needed to take drastic action. Our mindset had always been around 'We are leading our market and therefore confident in the decisions we make'. This week however was completely different as our strategy changed from being happy with being the market leader, to a hunger for more power and pursue the top companies within the simulation. We decided to be more aggressive in our decision making and ambitious in our number crunching, even though our CFO (who has done a remarkable job so far) could not make our final team decisions this week. Our group conformed to our ambitious decisions and changed numbers that she had previously recommended-This was a naive move and the route to our problems (Daudelin, 1996) come rollover for week 8.
Reflecting over the results from the recent rollover of week 8 is difficult to come to terms with as our SHV has dropped considerably. We tried to take big risks which haven't paid off (or paid off yet). Davies and Easterby-Smith (1984) raised a valid and appropriate point in their research surrounding management development in response to external business environments. In their experiments, it was noted that managers who worked in more volatile and turbulent business environments, suggested that they had developed more than those who did not. This in turn suggests that the amount of turbulence and change in the company’s economic environment was reflected in their internal environment, and why the managers in monopolistic environments experienced less development. This helps explain our problem and lack of performance this week. Before the most recent rollover I found myself not learning too much as I believed we were cruising through with all our successes, and no real competition within our market. However, since we changed to an aggressive strategy (one made without our hardworking CFO) looking outward to the overall global market, I now realise that we are still in a very unstable situation, where successful performance is no longer guaranteed. Our group has had a sudden crash landing back to reality where on the negative our performance has taken an extreme hit, but on the positive encouraged us to try develop into better department managers and learn ahead for the future rollovers. This I believe is a new stage of development for myself.
According to Daudelin (1996) taking action is appropriate. Its back to the drawing board and single player rollovers for me, while as a group we need to analyse the performance of all the other teams and calculate if its only us that have dropped in performance. Next week is going to be one hell of a long week awaiting the next rollover.
Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36--48
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 169--182.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00230.x
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33--42.