Group 5 Section B

Deba Pratim Sinha PGP13084

Neelakshi Borah PGP13098
Nikhil Dudhe PGP13100
P Swami Sachidananda PGP13101
Patankar Narendrasingh PGP13102
Pratik Gaokar PGP13105
Decision Making at the
Top: The All-Star Sports
eBusiness Division
Analysis
of challenges
Conflict
- Too big group
Diverse background
- Conflicts taken offline to
small subgroups
Inability to resolve conflict as
a group, because of above
reasons
- Good Strategy to continue the
same format as earlier which is
still profitable
Commitment
- Discussion generally involve half
of the group
- Lack of involvement due to
offline movement of conflict
- Ratification in decision process
inefficient
- Needs to be tackled, by
allocating a few more
responsibilities to group members
other than the subgroup involved
- Can leave conflict management
part to Harvard Graduates for crisp
analysis, & handover ratification &
modification part to industry
veterans to add experience
Closure
Inability to reach consensus
Voices unheard due to diverse
background and expertise
Need of confrontation to a
small extent is necessary to
make the decision making
process look more transparent.
Need of action to one of the
choices made.
A
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Smaller top management team: completely destructive as it
avoids the insight of many other key managers ; hence should
not be done
Elimination of subgroups: I nappropriate if above alternative is
not considered, however ratification can be improved even with
existing format
Fine-tuning existing rules and norms: Highly required and
beneficial if properly implemented keeping in mind the diverse
work culture
Allocate the decision
making according to
expertise: hardcore
analytical
background
managers or Industry
Veterans with high
experience
Increase the size
of subgroup
(specialized)
Change in ratification
stage, by giving more
importance to
managers other than
the subgroup, to add
their valuable
specialized expertise.
Fine tuning of existing
rules and norms: