Chris Steckler

MGMT 430 C Autumn 2016

Lessons Learned Paper
During our in-class case discussions, I learned that consideration of external factors requires
identifying relevant contextual factors, consideration of internal factors should err on the harsher side of
critical, diversity of perspectives in shared dialogue leads to more varied proposed alternatives,
consistency of business strategy is essential for success, and companies should always be prepared to
respond to criticism of the social implication of their business practices. Using Porters Five Forces
framework really helped me understand the industry-level context in which the given company operates,
but the importance of identifying the narrowness or broadness of the industry cannot be overstated. A
more in-depth analysis is always better than a shallow one. When considering internal factors, I found that
few companies have pure competitive advantages organized to capture value. By being honest with this
analysis, I could identify additional problems to consider when selecting an alternative. While one may be
wary of groupthink, allowing diverse perspectives to weigh in on an issue (when all voices have equitable
status) led to more varied proposed alternatives in class. I enjoyed playing Devils Advocate when a
solution was offered, as the solution only became stronger after undergoing scrutiny. Just as I have
focused my education on Marketing and Finance, companies must be consistent in their value proposition
to consumers. Is more focus placed on price or quality? Finally, corporate social responsibility is
constantly discussed in media and should therefore be considered in all strategic actions of a business. If
the business foresees public criticism for a course of action, a public statement should be prepared to be
reconsidered and revised if/when the public becomes aware of these actions.

From writing and discussing the two case studies and the Foster Strategy Development
Competition, I learned that context is key, alternatives should be numerous and varied during
brainstorming, and the business case (financial sense) for a decision should not be undervalued. The
importance of context was made clearest to me by the T-Mobile executives who participated in the Q&A
session during the Strategy Development Competition. When speaking about T-Mobiles current state, the
executives identified the Un-Carrier image as crucial for our alternatives to uphold. When completing
Porters Five Forces analysis for the mobile phone industry and SWOT analysis for T-Mobile, my team
kept T-Mobiles brand image in mind and used Is it Un-Carrier? as a criterion for our recommended
alternative. When brainstorming alternatives for individual case analyses, I considered as many
reasonable alternatives as possible, initially only bound by solving the problem the company is facing.
These alternatives range from minor (issuing a public statement with no other changes) to major
(restructuring, rebranding, etc.). This is an essential mindset for my future career as a financial analyst, as
I will prepare alternatives and supporting evidence for others to use to make business decisions. During
the feedback section of the Strategy Development Competition, one of the judges remarked that he liked
that we had presented a big, crazy idea but questioned the viability of putting it into action. Youve
clearly put a lot of research into this, but you seem to lack confidence in the business case of your idea,
he said. At the end of the day, you need to sell me on how your idea increases T-Mobiles profitability.
With concentrations in both Marketing and Finance, I often find myself trying to balance the public
perception of the company with the companys profitability. This feedback reminded me that I do not
need to hold image and profitability equal. While I should consider both, the best alternative is the one
that is most profitable for the company in both the short term and the long term.

Regarding teamwork and leadership, I learned that open communication among team members
can lead to balance, equal distribution of work requires consideration of strengths and weaknesses of team
members, and leadership means choosing the best alternative for the team/company which may not
necessarily be the solution that is personally preferred by the leader. Open communication was achieved
through a variety of methods (Google Docs, Facebook Messenger, Email, in-person meetings, etc.), and
group members could use any method they chose to express their opinion. I took it upon myself to ask
less dominant group members to voice their opinions and propose additional alternatives. When dividing
work among group members, my team identified our individual bases of knowledge (fields of study,
concentrations, work experience, etc.) and assigned sections to each person that played to our strengths
while acknowledging our weaknesses. The hardest lesson to learn was that leadership is most concerned
 Chris Steckler
MGMT 430 C Autumn 2016
Lessons Learned Paper
with the overall benefit to the group, rather than personal satisfaction. In this way, a leader must make
sacrifices. When my group was considering alternatives, another group member with a dominant
personality had put her weight behind an alternative that seemed unreasonable in terms of implementation
costs. I voiced my concern for this, but she seemed unwavering until a better alternative was proposed.
Because of this, I encouraged our team to continue to brainstorm alternatives. We listed basic criteria that
needed to be satisfied on a whiteboard and gave each group member a chance to propose any alternatives
they had prepared for the meeting. This list was far more focused than our previous list. Each group
member preferred their own proposed idea at first, but we eventually decided on our recommendation by
agreeing on additional criteria and using said criteria to evaluate each alternative. This separated the ideas
from their sources and united our team around our solution.

The three most important items I learned from MGMT 430 were that context is key, the business
case for a solution should not be undervalued, and unification around a company leads to better solutions.
As a future financial analyst for Amazon, I will cast a wide net when I gather data, recognize external and
internal factors that may have affected the outcome, and present my findings in a concise manner. When I
prepare my financial data, I will make it easily sortable by profitability and remember, despite the
Customer Obsession principle, that the companys profitability is also incredibly important. I will frame
my comments and recommendations around the companys values and not feel pressure to defend my
solution for prideful reasons, only for logical ones.