Several years ago, senior executives at energy company CanOil wanted to acquire an exploration company (HBOG) that was owned by another energy company, AmOil. Rather than face a hostile takeover and unfavorable tax implications, CanOil’s two top executives met with the CEO of AmOil to discuss a friendly exchange of stock to carry out the transaction. AmOil’s chief executive was previously unaware of CanOil’s plans, and as the meeting began, the AmOil executive warned that he was there merely to listen. The CanOil executives were confident that AmOil wanted to sell HBOG because energy legislation at the time made HBOG a poor investment for AmOil. AmOil’s CEO remained silent for most of the meeting, which CanOil executives interpreted as an implied agreement to proceed to buy AmOil stock on the market. But when CanOil launched the stock purchase a month later, AmOil’s CEO was both surprised and outraged. He thought he had given the CanOil executives the cold shoulder, remaining silent to show his disinterest in the deal. The misunderstanding nearly bankrupted CanOil because AmOil reacted by protecting its stock. What perceptual problem(s) likely occurred that led to this misunderstanding?

This incident describes true events in Dome Petroleum’s acquisition of Conoco, Inc. subsidiary Hudson Bay Oil and Gas (HBOG). (See: J. Lyon, The Rise and Fall of the House that Jack Built (Toronto: McMillan, 1983)). HBOG’s high acquisition price (due to Conoco’s resistance strategy) along with other debts, increasing interest rates, and falling oil prices put Dome on the brink of bankruptcy. The company was later acquired by Amoco. 

This incident is a classic example of false-consensus effect. The CanOil executives interpreted the AmOil CEO’s silence as tacit agreement with the plan, likely because they wanted to believe AmOil would support the stock swap strategy. Not only was this plan critical to the CanOil’s executives’ personal goals; it was also a high risk strategy that relied on questionable accounting procedures. These conditions likely further added to the CanOil executives’ perceptual bias that the AmOil CEO was on side.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is it possible to have a knowledge of what an organizational culture is before you become a part of the organization? How important is it for you to align yourself with your organizational culture?

Organizational culture is artifacts and shared values and assumptions. Artifacts may be observable before you become a part of the organization but the shared organizational values and assumptions are the intangibles and difficult to decipher before you become a part of it. It is important to align with the organizational culture because it represents the way things work in the organization. Organizational culture acts as the control system, the social glue and sense making. Any violation of what is shared by members of an organization is likely to create alienation for a new member.
Read more

“All decisions are ethical decisions.” Comment on this statement, particularly by referring to the concepts of moral intensity and moral sensitivity.

This sweeping statement is false. In other words, not all decisions are having equal right/wrong or good/bad dimensions. We are saying there is a threshold which defines ethical concern, and it is a function of moral intensity and moral sensitivity. For a decision to have an ethical dimension, i t has to have some moral intensity associated with it. Moral intensity is a characteristic of the situation. It refers to the degree to which an issue demands the application of ethical principles. “Who should be laid off?” would have high moral intensity. On the other hand, a decision to take an umbrella to work because it might rain has no moral intensity. This is because morally intense issues involve others in the society who may think the decision is good or evil, or the issue quickly affects people. Moral sensitivity refers to a characteristic of the decision maker, not the situation. Faced with the same issue, two decision makers may be more or less moral sensitive, depending on emp...
Read more

A 16-year-old hired as an office administrator at a small import services company started posting her thoughts about the job on her Facebook site. After her first day, she wrote: “first day at work. omg!! So dull!!” Two days later, she complained “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” Two weeks later she added “im so totally bord!!!” These comments were intermixed with the other usual banter about her life. Her Facebook site did not mention the name of the company where she worked. Three weeks after being hired, the employee was called into the owner’s office, where he fired her for the comments on Facebook and then had her escorted from the building. The owner argues that these comments put the company in a bad light, and her “display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable.” Discuss this scenario from the perspective of the owner and the worker.

This case occurred at a small industrial services business in the United Kingdom (see: A. Levy, “Teenage office worker sacked for moaning on Facebook about her 'totally boring' job,” Daily Mail, 26 February 2009). However, there are several similar cases involving Facebook, blogs, and other social media, where employees write negative comments about their employer. For example, this incident parallels two earlier cases in which (a) a Starbucks employee was fired for complaining about his boss’s decision on a work issue and (b) an employee who worked in marketing for government in northern Canada was fired for posting artistic photos of garbage in the snow. To some people, the case of the teenage Facebook complainer is a clear case of an employee who should be dismissed because she lacks sufficient commitment to and appreciation of the job. The company owner later explained to medi a : “We were looking for a long-term relationship with Miss Swann as we do with all our staf f ....
Read more