The organization is facing declining sales and profitability, and senior management has mandated significant cost reductions. Paul Wight, Head of R&D based in Denver, leads several development sites located in Brunswick (New Jersey), Vancouver (BC), Québec City, and Manchester (UK). He has been instructed to downsize his organization by 30% and close one of the sites. To discuss this plan, Paul calls all site managers to Denver.
The most controversial decision is determining which location will be closed. The head of the Manchester site, Chester Man, deeply mistrusts Paul’s judgment. Chester believes Paul dislikes the time zone challenges, the early and late hours of conference calls, and the travel burdens of flying to Manchester quarterly—in coach class. Chester suspects Paul has a hidden agenda to shut down Manchester.
Similarly, Denise Thibadeau, who leads the Québec site, assumes that her location is at risk. She believes the Québec site will be closed because of communication challenges—specifically hard to understand accents—as well as additional costs tied to compliance with Canadian language laws. Although development costs are subsidized by provincial tax concessions, Paul often shows impatience on calls when he cannot immediately understand what is being said. Denise interprets this as further evidence of bias.
In recent weeks, Denise and Chester, despite their personal animosity, have started discussing how to counter Paul’s perceived plan. They form a tactical alliance, agreeing to jointly take responsibility for maintaining a profitable legacy product and developing a new platform at exceptional speed and minimal cost. They knowingly misrepresent the timeline, assuming they can “clean it up later.” Their strategy is to leverage their sites’ low employee turnover; they escalate their proposal directly to Paul’s boss — a European — hoping to neutralize Paul’s influence.
Meanwhile, Paul asks his HR manager, Gloria Ramsbottom, to create an activity to build trust for the Denver meeting. She prepares a cooking class, followed by a webinar of a horse that runs increasingly fast while eating less.
Ultimately, Paul shuts down the Vancouver site. Denise and Chester grow their sites by 20%. Within months, Paul “moves on to his next assignment,” and Denise is selected to replace him starting in March.
Summary
This case illustrates the political dynamics and infighting within a geographically dispersed organization facing downsizing. Paul, the R&D head, must close one site and reduce staff by 30%. Site leaders in Manchester and Québec—fearing targeted closure based on assumed biases—form an unlikely alliance to protect their locations. They manipulate strategic commitments and leverage internal politics to override Paul’s authority. Despite attempts to build trust, the meeting fails to resolve underlying tensions. In the end, the Vancouver site is closed, the coalition succeeds, and Denise replaces Paul. The case highlights the challenges of mistrust, perceived favoritism, cultural differences, and coalition-building during organizational restructuring.
PS Lesson learned: People will never reach agreement who is the unlucky one to get a second circumcisions if they themselves are candidates for this procedure. Don’t use teams when you need to decide on your own.
