The following year, Sukanta discussed with Adil that unless they got into the ticket selling process, they might not be able to improve the ticket numbers. However, this would mean moving away from Zedius, and the transition could cause short-term pains since TrueColor would be entering into unchartered territory. Further, Sukanta added that TrueColor would achieve self-sufficiency over couple of years. Adil was concerned about the risk of taking over an activity that the organization was not competent at, but understood Sukanta’s point. In the interest of building long-term competencies, he authorized Sukanta to take it forward. Sukanta did not renew Zedius’s contract in the following year; instead, he recruited a skeletal team of three freshers from a premier business school as his support staff.
As the event approached, the team dedicated themselves to executing their plan. However, by the time the ticket sales window closed, they managed to sell only 40,000 tickets. This shift in strategy provoked considerable dissent within the company, challenging Sukanta's decision.
Disturbed by the situation, witnessing the internal turmoil, Adil must now navigate the company's immediate reaction.
Which of the following should now be Adil’s BEST course of action?
Answer: E
Stakeholders and criterion: Adil, Sukanta and his team, and the dissenting staff. Adil approved the move knowing it would cause short-term pain, and Sukanta said self-sufficiency would take a couple of years. A fall to 40,000 in the first year, with a new three-member team, is the expected transition cost. The best response stays consistent with that long-term decision.
Why option 5 is best: giving the investment time honours the strategy Adil approved "in the interest of building long-term competencies". Reversing after one predicted dip would waste the effort so far and damage his credibility as a leader.
- Option 1: running back to Zedius right away gives up the long-term plan after one expected setback.
- Option 2: dismissing the team and handing over to the old agency is the same reversal, and it also wastes the talent just hired.
- Option 3: threats demoralise a young team in a turnaround. They add pressure but no capability.
- Option 4: an agency working for the main competitor raises conflict-of-interest concerns, and it still abandons the in-house plan.
Answer: Option 5