Simulation: Crisis 1 Reflection

The simulation crisis 1 named "Labor perfect storm," was about a looming strike by the ramp worker
union of an airline, Liberty. My team of 5 was the airline's leadership in the looming strike crisis and
needed to make vital decisions to mitigate the situation to the satisfaction of customers, employees, and
shareholders of the airline. Group 4 - My teammates are;

1. Jack Woodman in CEO role.

2. Chukwunonso Ohadomere (Myself) in the CFO role.
3. Martin Cortez Rodriguez in CHRO role.
4. Emmyline Ray in the COO role.
5. Allison Eicher in CMO

The first stage of the simulation started with having the CEO decide on a direction in containing the
looming workers' strike. He had the option of unilaterally taking the decision or in consultation with the
leadership team. He opted to decide unilaterally and offered a union concession that cost $650,000. I,
the CFO, was next to decide on budget allocations to other team members/leadership heads. Though I
also had the option of making the decision unilaterally or in consultation with the team. I decided to
involve my teammates in the decision. I did so because I prefer the leadership style of participation, and
more so, the budget allocation was for support projects run by teammates i.e COO, CMO, CHRO. As
such, I needed to get their input to make an informed decision. Which I believe I did make as it brought
cohesion that enabled teammates to make other seamless and collaborative decisions in this stage.

As a result, our metrics went up. However, we had challenges. Firstly, we were operating in different
time zones with different personal schedules and could not schedule meeting times. We used Discord, a
mobile app platform in which we communicated and discussed issues pertaining to the simulation crisis.
We soon realized using the mobile platform was a good way to solve our time zones and meeting
scheduling problem. We would post our inputs and opinions and take team decisions on the crisis
scenarios at our convenience but within a 24hour period and sometimes in real-time. Some of the team
decisions included determining the spending cap percentage of our cash reserve for every stage and
determining support projects relevant to helping each crisis stage. This proved very effective in moving
us through the stages and phases.

The second stage was how to go about the union concession decision earlier decided. It required the
CEO to decide on the line of action in that regard. This time, the CEO decided in consultation with the
team on the issue, and it proved effective. This showed how teamwork could be effective in decision-
making and bring about a seamlessly collaborative climate. The decision was to tow the path of Fair
Trade Negotiation. Because of this, we decided that a minimal budget of $1M was required for support
projects to aid this. A team decision was taken that only the COO be allocated the budget for a support
project under her purview. Part of the essence was to keep spending minimal and avoid irrelevant
expenditures to save for future expedient situations. The CFO, CMO, and CHRO had zero budget
allocated to this effect. The decision-making process through the mobile platform proved effective in
this stage as it expedited our decision-making and saved us valuable time.

The Third Stage was about reaching agreement with the ramp workers union, but financial projections
predicted a higher cost. In consultation with the team, the CEO evaluated our situation and we
collectively decided to take the negotiation to binding arbitration. The airline had previously succeeded
in a similar situation with its pilots' union as it felt that success with this action would be cost-effective.
The team further decided that no budget allocation for other team members for support projects was
needed because it was an arbitration issue. As such, The CFO made zero budget allocation across the
board. This was part of our cost-saving measure.

At the end of Crisis 1, the metrics were as follows: Customer satisfaction - 32%, Employee satisfaction -
39%, and Shareholder satisfaction - 20%. I believe we did remarkably well under the given crisis
circumstance. Since the crisis was employee-related, we were able to increase employee satisfaction by
19%. I believe we could have done better on identifying and spending budgets on only relevant support
projects to the crisis situation. Embarking on support projects irrelevant to helping the crisis at hand was
inefficient and wasteful.

We discussed and took almost all our decisions as a team. Everyone offered inputs with reasons, and we
considered every idea brought before unanimously deciding. Because it was mostly a team decision and
I agreed with those decisions.

Shared or Distributed leadership is a theory in the textbook studied that was applicable to this crisis. The
fact that my team members had individual decisions to make, but such decisions correlated,
necessitated our application of distributed leadership. It allowed for team members to step forward to
provide the leadership necessary when decision-making within their purview warranted and then step
back to allow other team members to take leadership decisions when required. Because we had a
virtual team, shared/distributed leadership enhanced cohesion and collaboration. Thus, our decision-
making process in crisis was effective.

In this week's game, my demonstrated leadership style was that of a directive leader. I had owned a
small real estate firm and predominantly used this style to run the firm as its leader. The firm consisted
of only five people. I was the head, a secretary that doubled as the front desk staff, and three marketing
staff. I primarily exert control over situations and directed others on tasks and expectations in terms of
performance.