Introduction
In a global business environment where organizations can no longer rely on traditional factors that historically lead to a competitive advantage such as access to proprietary technology, exclusive rights to raw materials, or proximity to customers and markets, many organizations have re-structured to capitalize on new success factors. In the United States that has resulted in a shift in many cases from product or service-based businesses to knowledge-based businesses (OECD, 1996; Powell & Snellman, 2004). Powell & Snellman (2004) define the key components of a knowledge economy as. .a greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than on physical inputs or natural resources.” (p. 201). This case presents the challenges facing an organization as it transitions from its traditional business model to one that incorporates greater reliance on the knowledge of its workforce. The focus of this case is on the role of the organizational behavioral system in facilitating a successful transition to the new corporate strategy.
The Case Scenario
The Delta Pacific Company (DPC) has a long history of success. The company has been at the fore front in the development of information technology since the 1970s and led the market in technology development, manufacturing and sales throughout the 1980s to the mid-1990s. DPC was a success story. They consistently met or exceeded their profit targets, successfully integrated new technology into their products, and they were considered one of the best employers in the country. With generous benefit packages, a high quality of work life, industry leading salaries, and a corporate culture that considered its employees to be part of a family, potential employees were lined up for opportunities to join DPC.
However, with the advent of globalization, freer trade, and low cost overseas labor, DPC found itself slowly losing market share for its primary product: computer hardware. DPC had prided itself on producing and selling the best products and training its sales force to develop long term relationships with clients that brought them back year in and year out for DPC’s technology. Along with hardware, DPC also sold service contracts and training classes for the end users of their products. By the late 1990s it became clear to the leadership at DPC that they could no longer compete with less expensive products being produced overseas. At one time they could sell their higher priced goods on the premise that they were of higher quality, but that was no longer the case. Foreign-made products were now being produced to match or even surpass the quality standards set by DPC. However, conversations between sales representatives and their clients did indicate one thing: the clients valued the personal interaction they had with the sales reps and the personalized advice that they could provide to their clients to help them to reach their goals. DPC recognized that they needed to make a change and they believed they had a new vision for their company.
As they entered the 21st century DPC moved away from hardware solutions to business challenges and shifted instead towards knowledge-based solutions. Rather than selling equipment, DPC began to market the extensive knowledge of their workforce. DPC would no longer sell the equipment; they would instead provide integrated knowledge-based solutions to information management problems. Essentially they would become a consulting firm that would assist their clients to set up systems that would facilitate information management. But now their solutions would go beyond hardware and encompass software, organizational design, data collection management, work flow and overall information management re-engineering. Sales reps underwent significant training to prepare them for their new roles. However, the redesigned jobs were not a good fit for all of the sales reps. some moved on to other types of positions within the company, but others left to pursue opportunities elsewhere.
As expected, profitability declined during the initial introduction of this new organization mission as employees became accustomed to their new roles. Due to the time taken to train employees, they were spending less time in the field with their clients generating revenue and more time in the classroom being oriented to their new roles. However, the decline persisted much longer than anticipated and the company’s leadership team, board of directors and the shareholders were growing impatient with the slow returns. It became increasingly apparent that while the training, resources, and equipment were in place, significant changes in the organizational behavior system at DPC were necessary to ensure long term success.
se a conflict (Frowe (2011), Page 50). Right off the bat, Vittola examines one of the noble motivations of war, in particular, is when damage is caused however he causes notice the damage doesn’t prompt conflict, it relies upon the degree or proportionality, one more condition to jus promotion bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, nonetheless, contends the possibility of “worthwhile motivation” in view of “Power” which alludes to the assurance of political and regional privileges, alongside basic freedoms. In contemporary view, this view is more convoluted to reply, given the ascent of globalization. Additionally, it is challenging to gauge proportionality, especially in war, on the grounds that not just that there is an epistemic issue in ascertaining, yet again the present world has created (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Besides, Vittola contends war is fundamental, not just for protective purposes, ‘since it is legitimate to oppose force with force,’ yet additionally to battle against the vile, a hostile conflict, countries which are not rebuffed for acting unjustifiably towards its own kin or have shamefully taken land from the home country (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to “show its foes a thing or two,” yet essentially to accomplish the point of war. This approves Aristotle’s contention: ‘there should be battle for harmony (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). Notwithstanding, Frowe contends “self-protection” has a majority of depictions, found in Chapter 1, demonstrating the way that self-preservation can’t necessarily legitimize one’s activities. Significantly more dangerous, is the situation of self-preservation in war, where two clashing perspectives are laid out: The Collectivists, an entirely different hypothesis and the Individualists, the continuation of the homegrown hypothesis of self-protection (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). All the more significantly, Frowe discredits Vittola’s view on retribution on the grounds that first and foremost it enables the punisher’s position, yet additionally the present world forestalls this activity between nations through lawful bodies like the UN, since we have modernized into a moderately serene society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Above all, Frowe further disproves Vittola through his case that ‘right aim can’t be blamed so as to take up arms in light of expected wrong,’ proposing we can’t simply hurt another on the grounds that they have accomplished something treacherous. Different variables should be thought of, for instance, Proportionality. Thirdly, Vittola contends that war ought to be stayed away from (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we ought to continue conditions carefully. This is upheld by the “final retreat” position in Frowe, where war ought not be allowed except if all actions to look for tact falls flat (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This implies war ought not be announced until one party must choose the option to proclaim battle, to pr