CASE STUDY: FEEDBACK (see p. 37)

The following comments are provided as food for thought. Different interpretations are, of course, possible. What assumptions did Ina make when developing her strategy for the meeting? Ina assumed that it would be seen as positive by the subsidiary for her agency to be working with their headquarters in New York. She assumed that international companies liked to work in an aligned way, and that references from senior leaders at the headquarters would carry weight in the subsidiary. What do you think of Paul’s behaviour during the discussion? Paul offered very little substantial challenge to Ina’s way of thinking. Ina was not forced to surface her assumptions, and her logic was not tested in any way with alternative ideas. In the end, Paul contributed to the wrong decision being made. How could Paul have helped Ina to apply more critical thinking to her approach? Paul could have asked “why”-questions to help himself understand the logic of Ina’s thinking, as a basis for asking questions that tested this logic. For example, he could have asked, “Why do you think the subsidiary will be impressed by the references from headquarters?” He could also have used questions to explore the opposite assumption. For example: “How might working with headquarters be something negative for the Düsseldorf company?” Why do you think Ina’s pitch was unsuccessful? In international organizations, subsidiaries often have a challenging relationship with their parent company, which may be seen as being out of touch with local markets and driving top-down decisions that damage local operations. In this case, the Düsseldorf company wanted to retain as much independence and “invisibility” from the parent as possible, and so chose a different, local agency.