Question-Set 2: How Did You Handle The Ambiguity in Your Decision-Making? What Was

Question-set 2: How did you handle the ambiguity in your decision-making?
What was
really the basis of your decision making in the simulation (e.g. team harmony, wanting to
'win', etc.)? If you had to decide again collectively, what decision would you, or your team,
make about the parrots and the pollution level, and why? Build the most compelling
arguments for the other options. Would you feel differently about these issues if you owned
shares in a big mining company?
We began the simulation by trying to understand what was important to each stakeholder. We
also tried to understand who could influence whom by asking which stakeholders were essential
to them. Initially, we decided to save the rainforests and the indigenous population while
sacrificing and parrots. We installed filters to reduce river pollution and air conditioning to
safeguard employees' health but decided against the donation since it severely impacted the
profits. With this option, we were neither able to fully meet the environmental activists'
expectations or the government personnel involved. The profits were not very high, which did not
board well with the CEO, shareholder, and investors.
We found it difficult to find the right balance between protecting the environment and getting
high profits from the simulation project. We tried testing various options and understanding how
these impacted the various stakeholders. We decided to pick the combination which benefitted
most people and led to most people getting converted. We also used our understanding of who
influences whom and what is important to each stakeholder. We told them about those aspects of
the plan and about relevant stakeholders who supported our project and could help us convince
those on the fence.
Our basis of decision-making was to be able to convert the maximum number of stakeholders.
We were mindful that it would be difficult to convert all stakeholders and decided to choose those
options that pleased the most stakeholders and those with strong influence and interconnections.
We understood each stakeholder's priorities via telephonic conversations or in-person meetings at
both individual and group levels keeping in kind their communication preferences.
In our final decision, we decided to go with open mining which destroyed the habitat of parrots
since only one stakeholders support depended on what happens to parrots. We opted for a river
pollution level of 48,000 and decided to install a filter for the processor instead of building a new
plant to optimize the mix of pollution level and overall profits. We saved both the rainforests and
the indigenous population. We also decided to donate to the schools.
Given another chance we would evaluate the trade-off between moving indigenous people, saving
rainforests, and saving parrots habitation. Although we decided with perspective that saving
indigenous settlement would get the project more support, we realized that people can be moved
from place to place, create a new livelihood but that may not be the same with only species of
parrots left on the planet. We did not consider this fact in our initial decisions. Coming to
pollution, we choose optimal level which optimised the profits and pollution level; hence we will
stick to the same decision.
Based upon a mutual understanding, we took a utilitarian perspective of driving more profits to
the organization and converting maximum stakeholders in favour of the project. However, in the
process to maximise gains, we had to destroy Rainforests and Parrot plots, which not only
damaged the firm's reputation but also displeased external stakeholders such as Carla Crespo-
Ecologist, Helen Klien- Activist, Paloma Wright- UNY Professor and most importantly Valerie
Vidal- Customer.
Such denial to environmental concerns could help the firm realize profits in short run, but firm's
image could tarnish over time. Hence, as a manager, we need to be cognizant of all such regards
and do our best to optimize the scenario to maximise both stakeholder's and firm's interest.
Let's work out options to devise a more optimal solution with sole focus on boosting stakeholder's
and firm's value to develop sustainability.
a. Settlement Plot: An open pit construction could destroy the entire settlement and force
people to develop newer establishments elsewhere. This idea might be unsettling to the Leon
Gonzala, but with sufficient compensation, we can help people settle in new homes. Further,
complete migration would ensure, daily lives of indigenous population is not affected. Hence, we
would explore the possibility of performing an open pit construction in the settlement area
to boost firm's profitability.
b. Preserving Rainforest and Parrot Plot: Conserving natural resources and

safeguarding rare species, we generate happiness for a larger portion of the society. Therefore, we
aim to invest in maintaining the status quo, mitigate concerns raised by ecologist and as a result
enhance firm's image.
c. Processor: Given the three options, we would continue with the existing choice of
installing filters and keeping the water pollution under legal checks. Though, we agree that
treatment plant would cut down on water pollution by large amounts, but the associated costs are
so high that it would affect other benefits linked to the mining project.
d. Loading Area: In any manufacturing setting, safety and health of the workers come
first, hence it is the moral duty of the firm to take relevant steps to minimize health risks. Hence,
we would install the Air Conditioners to provide better working conditions to workers which in
turn would keep Ricardo Silva happy.
e. Community: Through our meetings with different stakeholders, we understood that

building community is very essential to receive the required local and political support required
for a project of such scale. Further, it creates more value to the community and boosts firm's
image. Hence, we would continue to donate $50 MM to schools.
Out final recommendation to Garrad would be as follows:

Development Plan
Settlement Open Pit
Rainforest Unaffected Underground
Parrots Underground
Processor Filter
Loading Area Air Con
Community Donation

Question-Set 2: How Did You Handle The Ambiguity in Your Decision-Making? What Was

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question-Set 2: How Did You Handle The Ambiguity in Your Decision-Making? What Was

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question-Set 2: How Did You Handle The Ambiguity in Your Decision-Making? What Was

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Question-set 2: How did you handle the ambiguity in your decision-making?

shares in a big mining company?

b. Preserving Rainforest and Parrot Plot: Conserving natural resources and

e. Community: Through our meetings with different stakeholders, we understood that

Out final recommendation to Garrad would be as follows:

You might also like