Written Analysis and Communication

Case Analysis: A Question of Character

Post-Graduate Programme in Management

Indian Institute of Management, Indore

Submitted to: Professor Swatantra

On 13th November, 2021
Section G, Group 8

Name Roll Number

ARJUNAN V 2021PGPH012

ISHAN ANSHUL 2018IPM046

KAUSTUBH JAIN 2018IPM127

KUNAL KUMAR 2021PGP184

P ABHINAV 2021PGP234

SANJANA R 2021PGP522

SUSWET SUKUMAR PATRA 2021PGP399

SWIKRITI M WANKHEDE 2021PGP524

1
 Memo of Transmittal

Date : 12/11/2020
From : Group 6, Section D
To : Prof. Swatantra

Subject : Case Analysis Report | A Question of Character

We submit here with a written analysis of the case : “A Question of Character” to Prof
Swatantra as part of our WAC graded assignment.

Please feel free to contact us for further clarification.

Warm Regards,
Group 8 | Section - G

2
Executive Summary

“Glamor-a-Go-Go” is an expanding cosmetics firm mainly targeting young females. Their CEO,
Joe Ryan, had recently made news in a tabloid for alleged infidelity with an office employee.
While being an extremely competent CEO who grew the firm as a great workplace and a
profitable enterprise, there have been multiple rumors of similar allegations including flirting
with female employees and providing unfair advantages to them and therefore, the board is
considering what action to take in this regard. Given the nature of these conducts and the
criticality of Joe in running the business, the board has decided to have an intervention and place
Joe under a stricter code of conduct which sets expectations on his behaviour in public and in
front of employees. 

3
 Table of Contents

Situation Analysis 5

Problem Statement 5

Options 5

Criteria for Evaluation 5

Evaluating the Options 6

Recommendations 7

Action Plan 7

Contingency Plan 7

4
Situation Analysis

Glamor-a-Go-Go is a successful cosmetic company planning to go global in 18 months. Catering

to young women & communicating feminist values, it has created a brand identity analogous to
their product line- “Girl Power”. Perceived to be in contrast with the same values by some, is the
company’s larger-than-life and polarizing CEO, Joe Ryan. His favorable legacy of upscaling the
company operations, developing dynamic & employee-friendly workplace and delivering
consistently high profitability, squares off with his flirtatious carefree demeanor, rumors of
favoritism & womanizing, and a marginal but growing discomfort among employees. While
Ryan has claimed innocence every time he’s been questioned and no allegation against him has
ever been proven, a recent photograph of him with a young female employee in a tabloid has
reignited discussions and created factions within the board with regard to Ryan’s character & the
aligned future of the organization.
Problem Statement
Considering the past and recent turn of events, how should the board handle Ryan and the
aligned future of the company?
Options
1. Maintaining the status-quo: Board can choose not to interfere with Ryan & the current
operations, and focus on deviating attention towards the global expansion and independent
branding efforts.
2. Defending Ryan in Public: Collecting favourable evidence, building defence strategies and
issuing public statements in support of Ryan and aggressively attacking the rumours.
3. Taking Disciplinary Action against Ryan: Citing misalignment with company values,
terminating Ryan’s relationship with the organisation.
4. Coaching and Sensitizing Ryan: Employing an executive coach and/or media training
personnel to modify and set controls on Ryan’s behaviour.

5
Criteria for Evaluation
1. Brand Identity and Public Perception of the company: Through its communication, the
company has established an identity as an empowering brand for young females. To not erode
the same and protect the positive outlook among their target demographic, the actions of its
representatives and company’s choices shall be critical.
2. Shareholder’s Response: As per the understanding of senior board members, representing
shareholder’s interest is of primary importance and that their outlook can vary from
indifference to fury as per Ryan’s future with the company.
3. Functioning & future plans of the company: The impact of the decision on the regular
operations, global expansion project and the employee morale needs to be looked into.
4. Litigation Risks: Considering the human resource facets of the issue at hand, the legal
implications & possibilities must be considered.
Evaluating the Options

1. Maintaining the status-quo: Allowing Ryan to work as usual and concentrating efforts on
global expansion plan is likely to bode well with the stockholders and ensure continuance of
stability in the company’s regular functioning. Nevertheless, allowing surfaced rumours to
take their course can gradually erode the brand image. While independent marketing efforts
can be made to try deviating public discussion, the company is also liable of being accused of
negligence in case any allegation is proved in future, leading to possible legal repercussions
and public ridicule. Moreover, the growing faction of uncomfortable employees may
aggravate beyond control.
2. Defending Ryan in Public: By taking a public stance in support of Ryan through CEO’s PR
Statements and shutting down rumours, the company can take control of the story. This will
likely assuage stakeholders anxious about the recent happenings and protect the brand
identity, and simultaneously allow Ryan to respectably lead the operations. However, any
perception of contradiction between the claims and reality can cause murmurs within the
organization and severely dent the public image. In case of any harassment case, the company
can also get into legal troubles.
3. Taking Disciplinary Action against Ryan: Ceding to the growing questions on Ryan’s
character and perceived misalignment with company values, the board can choose to lay him

6
 off and issue a public statement. While it can drive favourable public perception as a sincere
and bold company, the stockholders are likely to agitate against this extreme measure. This is
also likely to disrupt the on-going expansion plan and day-to-day operations. Considerable
fraction of the employees who see Ryan as a leader are likely to be upset, resist or quit.
However, the future legal risks shall also be minimized.
4. Coaching and Sensitizing Ryan: Considering the perceivably problematic facets of Joe’s
demeanour, the board can sensitize him about appropriate behaviour within and outside the
organization as the face of the company. This coaching and media/PR training approach
would ensure the public image remains positive and untarnished, there’s a comfortable
working environment and high morale, and with Ryan still at helm, no objections from the
shareholders. Company may not be able to wash its hands off any past incident if proven, but
any future action leading to litigation or disrepute can be eliminated.

Recommendations

Considering the evaluation criteria, moderating and sensitizing Ryan’s conduct within the
company and in front of the public eye, is the best move forward as it would mean a continuation
of Ryan’s successful legacy with the company while simultaneously working proactively against
any questions on his character & securing a reputable future for the company.

7
Action Plan

The board must start by holding an intervention with Ryan where his actions and their
corresponding perceptions are communicated such that the repercussions to Ryan and the firm
are clear. This may be followed by a proactive executive coaching programme to sensitize him.
This may be accompanied with a dedicated PR team and making Ryan comply with certain
codes of conduct within the firm and during public appearances which includes demonstrating
parity among employees, following a fair appraisal process, and managing his image with
respect to females.

Contingency Plan

In case Ryan refuses to cooperate, strict action needs to be taken against his non-compliance
while acknowledging the value he brings to the firm. The board should remove him from the
position of CEO and move him to a role where he does not represent the face of the company. In
case Joe decides to leave the firm on this accord, the board should appoint a new CEO and
therefore should have potential candidates in mind.