The proclivity to pass blame between organizational members also suggest an internal cultural shortcoming rooted in an unwillingness to take responsibility for planning failures. This is an unnecessary conflict which is derived from the onus on planning failure and the clear incapacity of the organization to rebound in its wake. This perspective and reality go hand in hand.
So may we observe this from an article regarding Toyotas ongoing struggles and its contingency efforts at damage control. Such a crisis can surely illuminate the behaviors that may be demanded in the face of unexpected planning failures. According to Takahashi (2010), “Toyota Motor Corp. said Friday it will temporarily halt production at its factories in France and the U.K. For a total of at least 12 days from late March, due to weaker demand for its vehicles in the region after a series of global safety recalls. The production suspension coincides with planned production adjustments at two Toyota plants” which are part of a measured response to a serious company crisis. Certainly, Toyota has not scrapped any of its operations, but has simply altered its approach. Rather than scrapping a plan into which our organization has already invested so much time, energy and resource, proper evaluation of the failure and a responsive set of options for contingency planning must instead be developed.
This will depend heavily on the nature of the company itself. There is required a great deal of both internal reflection and understanding of a larger industry for a company to determine the best way to achieve competitive advantage in some regard. Pierce & Robinson denote as much, remarking that “businesses become successful because they possess some advantage can be found in the businesss cost structure and its ability to differentiate the business from competitors. DisneyWorld in Orlando offers theme park patrons several unique, distinct features that would differentiate it from other entertainment options.
Costco offers retail customers the lowest prices on popular consumer items because they have created a low-cost structure that results in a competitive advantage over most competitors.” (Pierce & Robinson, 246) Today, it is also necessary to consider such factors as speed, which functions as a competitive advantage in the way that supply chain, delivery of service or efficiency of customer relations aspects are managed. And ultimately, while it is true that some combination of all of these does define a true competitive advantage and can be used to predict long-term viability, many organizations will be limited in resource, reach or market penetration and will therefore be required to make a decision based on their own unique realities. A company will great resource availability and a large structure can often achieve competitive advantage through its lower cost. By contrast, a smaller company may be more capable of delivering its product with speed and customizing it to the needs of a client. This denotes that the way an organization chooses to pursue its competitive advantage will be largely contingent upon that which is feasible. Works Cited: BBC News. (2002). Enron Scandal at-a-glance. British Broadcasting Company. Online at