Global Analysis CommunicationJoin now to read essay Global Analysis CommunicationGAP ANALYSIS: GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONSGap Analysis: Global CommunicationsUniversity of Phoenix4/14/08Gap Analysis: Global CommunicationsIn this world where e-mails travel at the speed of light to an individual’s in-box, technology has enhanced the way companies are able to communicate and conduct business. Global Communications is a company that stands at the forefront of the world as a leader in the telecommunications industry. Even a master of electronic communication can be bitten by the hand that feeds it, as is the case with Global Communications. Changing fundamentals within the industry, increased competition from new players, and an archaic business plan and model have pushed Global Communications to a state of emergency. To continue, executives of the company must engineer an aggressive re-organization, which includes outsourcing domestic union jobs to foreign counterparts, re-inventing the company’s public image and re-engaging a volatile workforce. While the changes that Global Communications must implement seem daunting, executives of the company also have the challenge of turning the company’s intrinsic problems to opportunities for growth and expansion. If successful, the dark cloud that hovers over the company is a mere passing storm, with a silver lining: A better, more efficient company that is truly global and poised for new challenges that may arise.
Distinguishing between the problem and issues regarding the problem is critical with the Global Communications scenario. The problem/opportunity is transforming the company into a true global player in the telecommunications industry. An analysis of the historical events that have lead to Global Communication’s state of emergency reveals that the company was structurally incompetent and not organized in a manner to deal with a potential crisis.
Increased competition, price wars, and changing industry fundamentals are standard problems that executives must deal with and successfully manage. The execution and implementation of decisions is what separates good managers from poor managers. The crisis facing Global Communications will force the company to become a world leader in its industry, and also force executives to re-structure the company so that it can deal with potential problems moving forward.
There were several key occurrences that have led to the issues that Global Communications faces. Other companies, who were looking to gain a competitive advantage in the industry merged with other firms and were able to diversify their products and services. The industry transformed. New technology permeated the market and Global Communications was not able to keep up. Price wars and expanding use of foreign labor forces also allowed competitors to offer products and services at a discount to Global Communication’s price structure. Meanwhile, executives of Global Communications focused their efforts on managing day to day operations of the company and ignored important signs that the current state of the business had to evolve.
The Global Communications website explains that “We don’t have a good record of growth, but that’s probably the main reason why Global Communications is getting better and better. Global Communications’ growth is going to accelerate.”
This is what Global Communications told us the company’s new CEO, Steve “Nathan” Tiller, actually means. In the company’s statement, Tiller stated that Global Communications has expanded to 150 regional employees, which is 20 percent of the company’s entire existing employees.
Last year, Tiller announced that Global Communications would be closing its doors and closing its offices.
Global Communications, as you have probably heard, has been the subject of a federal investigation for alleged fraud, financial misconduct and a multi-million dollar lawsuit by five former employees which has cost the company millions of dollars in legal costs. The former employees included employees of Global Communications (which have also received the U.S. Open Office License) and other companies, with the aim of becoming its “innovation agents.”
Over the past few years, more and more U.S. attorneys who are investigating the allegations have found their clients being unfairly targeted and the company’s image tarnished.
“It’s not good business,” a former federal prosecutor told VICE, as the investigation continues into Global Communications. “We should not have to put any more pressure on Global Communications. They are trying to profit. They know how to get business — and they’ve done.”
That was a quote that was echoed in the interview that has led VICE to issue a statement saying that any criminal charges against defendants who have received licenses to operate a new private security company should be denied.
I have had my eyes on this for a long time and when I saw that letter, I was shocked. I had never seen anyone that could get a license for doing that.
He has no credibility in his work, and it saddens me a lot to see this people go after his wife who is getting her career back and has taken up a job that paid all she earned.
The allegations that have broken out as one of the leading sources of threats and harassment to the company have not made it much easier to find a new way of tackling an issue that exists in the U.S., which has been particularly fraught with domestic security threats involving Internet users.
The company has faced multiple legal and economic challenges because it used to employ foreign lawyers and was once accused of being a “secret society,” in which hackers could use law enforcement to infiltrate servers of companies and steal data without access to criminal records.
On Feb. 7, 2015, Global Communications was accused of not following up security requests because the company’s business practices do not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
This is why law enforcement is so vulnerable to the threats to its business by foreign nationals.
Law enforcement has been forced to look for work because of U.S.
Internally, Global Communications’ management team had new individuals at the top of the corporate structure who were responsible for making critical decisions as well as more tenured managers who experienced success through the old ways of business that Global Communications conducted. Ultimately, the division between new and old members of the management team was yet another barrier to a smooth transition of the company.
Central at the internal conflict of Global Communications are the executive management team and the union representing the workforce. The management team has determined that it must outsource work in the foreign labor market at the expense of the union which has already made concessions to keep the company afloat. The union has shown its dedication and commitment to Global Communications by previously agreeing to reductions in benefits. The needs of each side have been polarized. Both sides have interests that they must protect. However, there appears to be no middle ground where both sides can be content. Union workers feel betrayed with information of the direction that the company is taking while management has concluded that there is one outcome with a positive ending. Unfortunately, for the union, management’s assessment of the situation and the solution to the problems are outsourcing, reducing costs and forming new alliances to improve products and services. These solutions appear to be accurate. Executives must protect the interests of shareholders of Global Communications