Management Problems: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance - Case Study Example

? Management problems Some years ago John Cauldwell who funded and ran Phones for U was petitioned by his retail branch managers to ban the use of internal email, after consultations with his staff Cauldwell ordered the cessation of internal emails. Discuss both the problems and benefits of such policy and cite other examples of organizations, which have pursued a similar course. Give examples of some of the alternative systems (not just networks brands such as Yammer and communote), which have been adopted to replace internal email. 1. Introduction The use of emails as tools for communication within organizations has become a common phenomenon. Dispute their necessity, internal emails have been often blamed for resulting to a series of important problems, especially at the level that competitors can access them. It is possible for this reason that Cauldwell, the founder of Phones for U, decided to ban the use of internal mail in the workplace. The potential justification of the above initiative of Cauldwell is discussed in this paper. The benefits and drawbacks of the specific policy are presented, followed by examples of organizations that adopted a similar practice. Moreover, reference is made to alternative systems of similar role that are likely to be used in organizations worldwide instead of internal mail. It seems that the decision of Cauldwell to ban the use of internal email is justified, especially since the benefits of the particular tool of communication are significantly less than their disadvantages. 2. Cessation of internal emails – benefits and problems The most common reason for the use of internal email for supporting the internal communication needs of modern organizations is their low cost (Mohapatra 2009). In fact, in the context of a business IT network, the cost of email is zero, a fact that it is often used for a justification for the establishment of email as internal communication tools in businesses worldwide (Mohapatra 2009). The above role of email has been explored in the literature. Most researchers and theorists seem to agree that internal email can no more keep the balance between its benefits and its risks (Guffey and Loewy 2009). The cessation of internal emails in modern organizations, as also this policy was promoted in the firm Phones for U, would be evaluated by referring to its positive and negative aspects. At a first level, internal emails have important advantages. Reference can be made, for example, to their simplicity, meaning that even a novice in the use of IT systems can write and send an email (Trenerry 1999). Moreover, emails have become quite popular in regard to specific business operations; for example, when payments are sent electronically to businesses of various sizes, an email needs to be sent including the receipt of the payment made (Trenerry 1999). Up today, internal emails had another important advantage: the saving of time in developing business tasks. In the past, internal emails were extensively used for the exchange of documents within organizations, especially in cases that a document had to be reviewed immediately (Guffey and Loewy 2009). At the same time, internal emails have highly contributed in the increase of coordination within organizations especially ‘between superiors and their subordinates’ (Guffey and Loewy 2009, p.196). The introduction of other internal communication tools that could perform such tasks, has led to the limitation of the use of emails in the workplace. Taking into consideration the above issues, the cessation of internal emails within Phones for U, as also in other organizations, seems to be totally unjustified. However, the review of this practice’s disadvantages would help to understand that the risks of internal emails can be significant, a fact justifying the decision of Cauldwell to ban their use in Phones for U; in other firms also, it seems that the cessation of internal emails would be the only solution for avoiding severe business failures. One of the most severe weaknesses of emails is their accessibility. More specifically, quite often email accounts are accessed by third persons and illegal activities are developed. It was 1985 the Security and Exchange Commission ‘filled a complaint against E.F.Hutton for unlawful access of 2000 emails and checking accounts’ (McNeil and Brian 2008, p.365). Schwartz et al. (2010) notes that banning internal emails is not necessarily negative for communication and cooperation within organizations. For example, in Dannon, the banning of emails seem that benefited communication. In fact, in the above case, the banning of emails led to the improvement of communication among employees, a fact that was made clear in the firm’s meetings (Schwartz et al. 2010, p.222). According to the CEO of the above organization, after the banning of emails, employees have managed ‘to concentrate on straight talk and productive debate’ (Schwartz et al. 2010, p.222). It is further noted that it was the first time that participation was high, leading to the development of critical decisions in regard to a variety of organizational activities (Schwartz et al. 2010, p.222). The case of Dannon, as presented above, proves that banning the e-mail could be an effective strategy for improving communication within the organization; instead of continuously communicating through the IT systems, employees can discuss and reach to solutions after exchanging views. The disadvantages of internal emails, compared to other communication tools, are also made clear through the following fact: firms have started to ban email and promote other internal communication tools, aiming to avoid safety risks, to which internal emails have been proved to be highly exposed and to improve the quality of communication in the workplace; Palmer (2011) refers to the example of ATOS, an important competitor in the global IT industry. According to Palmer (2011), the strategic managers of ATOS have announced their intention ‘to ban the use of internal emails across the organization by 2014’ (Palmer 2011). It is explained that this decision has been take because of the continuous safety failures in internal emails, as these failures have led to severe damages for many organizations worldwide. Apart from Atos, other companies worldwide are planning to ban internal emails, as revealed through relevant schemes. For example, in ‘Intel and CSIRO, a science agency based in Australia’ (Naim 2011) the following practice has been promoted: days during which internal emails are prohibited have been established (Naim 2011). In this way, the establishment of alternative internal communication methods is promoted. Another important disadvantage of internal emails seems to be their inefficiency (Palmer 2011). In this context, in ‘Klick, a Canadian digital marketing company’ (Palmer 2011), the banning of internal emails has been decided because of the weaknesses of internal emails, mostly in terms of safety but also in terms of difficulties in managing the documents and the rest of the material incorporated in emails (Palmer 2011). Haden (2011) notes that internal emails have been banned in Klick not just for safety reasons but also for their ineffectiveness. More specifically, according to the firm’s CEO internal emails have been found to have a key disadvantage: ‘the lack of mechanism for prioritisation and the lack of a mechanism supporting knowledge management’ (Haden 2011). The underperformance of internal emails in terms of intelligence, as combined with their safety failures, is considered as the key reason for the banning of the particular internal communication tool in Klick. An additional weakness of internal emails is revealed in the study of Baer and Naslund (2011). The above researchers note that internal emails have important disadvantages in regard to their storing capabilities (Baer and Naslund 2011). It is explained that there is just one option for ‘enhancing the storage capabilities of internal email’ (Baer and Naslund 2011, p.119). It is possible to create an e-mail address that will be used specifically for storing purposes (Baer and Naslund 2011, p.119). Then, the files send to that email address can be categorized and saved appropriately either in local disk or in remote memory devices. It is clear that managing a high volume of files through emails can be extremely time consuming and risky also, since the chance for files to be lost, while they are transferred from the email to an external database or the local disk, is significant (Baer and Naslund 2011, p.119). It is clear from the above that the use of internal emails as internal communication tools in organizations can be risky; moreover, the expected benefits of internal emails seem to be significantly increased compared to their disadvantages. For this reason, it is suggested that internal emails, as communication tools, should be banned, a fact that would also lead to the limitation of risks involved in internal communication, as these risks were analysed earlier. An alternative internal communication tool would be chosen instead, as suggested in the section that follows. 3. Alternative systems, which have been adopted to replace internal email Internal emails have many similarities to traditional electronic messaging tools. Hanseth and Ciborra (2007) note that the development of electronic messaging, under the influence of continuous improvement of technology worldwide, has been quite rapid. Reference can be made primarily to a series of electronic messaging tools, which were used in the past, the late 1990s, meaning the time period when electronic messaging first appeared: ‘the Lotus:CC Mail, Lotus Notes and Novell Group Wise’ (Hanseth and Ciborra 2007, p.159). Through the years, electronic messaging options have been combined with real-time communication, meaning the social media and the other social networking tools that are used today as communication tools. As already explained earlier, many organizations start to replace internal emails with other internal communication tools. Internal emails have been in the market for many years, almost since the appearance of WWW. As a result, their replacement is often delayed; managers do not like to take the risk of adopting an unknown internal communication tool, even if the negative effects of internal emails can be significant, as explained in the previous section. For example, managers in Atos have decided to ban internal emails by 2014; the relevant decision was taken in 2011, meaning that managers in the above organization have allowed a period of three years to intervene between the replacement of the organization’s internal communication tools (Naim 2011). This fact indicates the potential concerns of the above organization’s managers for taking such risk. On the other hand, the case of Atos has revealed that there are internal communication tools that can effectively replace internal emails; more specifically, in Atos managers have decided to use ‘Spigit, a collaboration tool designed for innovation management’ (Naim 2011); it has been also decided that the above tool will be combined with other communication tools, such as ‘Yammer, SocialText and Chatter’ (Naim 2011). According to Naim (2011) one of the most effective internal communication tools is the ‘Office Communication Server’ (Naim 2011); the specific system may be incorporated in the internal communication framework of Atos, which will include also the communication tools described above. It should be noted that the expansion of social media in internal communication has been rapid; firms in each sector can use among the type of social media that is most appropriate for their needs, taking into consideration the local infrastructure, the funds available for their support/ maintenance and their performance needs, especially in the long term. In any case, since the replacement of internal emails, as internal communication tool, with another communication tool of such role can be costly and risky, it is necessary to take into consideration all aspects of the relevant initiative: because internal emails are also used for storage purposes, their replacement should be followed by a thorough check in order to ensure that the files incorporated in internal emails will be saved. At this point, a need for compatibility between the internal emails and the new internal communication tool chosen seems to be intensive. In other words, the availability of alternative schemes for replacing internal emails is not the only prerequisite for the development of such initiative, i.e. for deciding the banning of internal emails. It is also necessary that the alternative scheme chosen is aligned to the existed internal email scheme and that the transition for the one scheme to the other will not result to significant damages for the organization; the above problems can be avoided if the relevant initiative is carefully planned and closely monitored. 4. Conclusion The ways in which internal communication is developed in organizations around the world are highly differentiated, being influenced by the organizational culture, the similar practices of competitors, the risks involved and the resources available for the realization of each internal communication project. The decision of Cauldwell to ban internal emails in Phone for U can be initially regarded as unjustified, having in mind the high value of internal emails as communication tools in businesses with different characteristics. The review of the literature related to the particular subject leads to the following assumption: since technological advances are quite important allowing the establishment of a high range of safe and effective communication tools, the use of internal emails within organizations should be banned. Indeed, the risks involved in the use of internal emails seem to be many; in fact, the negative effects of internal emails are related to severe organizational damages, meaning especially the case of access of competitors to critical organizational data. In addition, the alternative internal communication tools, as indicatively presented above, are of higher safety standards ensuring the protection of valuable business or personal data, for example, personal data of employees that are stored in a firm’s databases. Therefore, the initiative of Cauldwell to ban internal emails would be characterized as absolutely justified, a view that is also verified by the similar initiatives of other businesses worldwide, as for example, ATOS and Klick, as explained above. In any case, internal emails are a technological feature that has been in the market for more than 10 years. Their replacement is unavoidable since in the meantime the technology related to internal communication has been highly developed. References Baer, J., and Naslund, A. (2011) The Now Revolution: 7 Shifts to Make Your Business Faster, Smarter and More Social. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Down, L., and Mui, C. (2000) Unleashing the Killer App: Digital Strategies for Market Dominance. Harvard: Harvard Business Press. Fisher, C., and Lovell, A. (2006) Business Ethics And Values: Individual, Corporate and International Perspectives. Essex: Pearson Education. Grover, V., and Markus, L. (2008) Business Process Transformation. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Haden, J. (2011) “The Company That Outlawed Email” INC. Available at http://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/the-company-that-outlawed-email.html [Accessed at 25 May 2012] Guffey, M., and Loewy, D. (2009) Essentials of Business Communication. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Hanseth, O., and Ciborra, C. (2007) Risk, Complexity and ICT. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. McNeil, B., and Brian, B. (2008) Internal Corporate Investigations. Chicago: American Bar Association. Mohapatra, S. (2009) Business Process Automation. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Naim, G. (2011) The trouble with office email. Financial Times. Available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/514a86b2-3aaf-11e0-9c65-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1w5y3cwPt [Accessed at 25 May 2012] Palmer, M. (2011) “End email: Firms find a cure for inbox hell” The Globe and Mail. Available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/end-email-firms-find-a-cure-for-inbox-hell/article2277729/print/ [Accessed at 25 May 2012] Schwartz, T., Gomes, J., and McCarthy, C. (2010) The Way We're Working Isn't Working: The Four Forgotten Needs That Energize Great Performance. New York: Simon and Schuster. Slack, N., Chambers, S., and Johnston, R. (2010) Operations Management. Essex: Pearson Education. Trenerry, A. (1999) Principles Of Internal Control. Sydney: UNSW Press. Read More