Mr. Collins, who was a marketing manager in one of the company in Washington, was required to advertise a new product in the market so that he can increase sales of the company. He saw this as an opportunity to save some money by reducing the advertising budget .Mr. Collins as a marketing manager decided not to spend more money on advertising and he presented inadequate budget so that he can save the money. He hoped that by spending less money on advertising, he was going to save some money that will benefit the company (Daniel, 2012).
Mr. Collins intentions were good in that he wanted to sustain the company by using the amount saved from advertising to boost company’s operations. On the other hand, he had responsibilities of sustaining the company’s customers and employees. This means that he wanted to use the saved money to buy more products in the market to sustain the needs of the customers. This is because the product was new in the market and there was the need to maintain it in the market. In addition, Collins estimated that the money as a result of saving will be used to pay the employees of the company, which were good intentions (Espinosa & Walker, 2011).
After carrying out advertisement, it seemed it did not make impact on the customers as it was inadequate. The finances for advertising proved to be minimal and could not sustain the all advertising process. Therefore, the good intentions of cutting the advertising budget to save the money for other business operations within the company proved not successful. This is because the results of the advertising were devastating as the customers’ response to the new products in the market was minimal. This became a huge problem on the side of Mr. Collins who was the marketing manager. As a result of inadequate advertising, the company’s sales decreased tremendously thus affecting the company’s profitability. This was a major blow to the business and the marketing manager (Espinosa & Walker, 2011).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Consequently, the impact did not stop here; the employees of the company were also affected since the company was not in a position to pay them their dues. The other affected group was the company’s customers. As a result of decreased sales, the company couldn’t be able to avail its products in the market thus not meeting the customer’s needs in time. Therefore, the good intentions of saving the money by reducing the advertising budget became a problem in the long-run for the business, Mr. Collins, employees, customers and other stakeholders (Daniel, 2012).
Looking at this situation, it can be viewed as a vicious circle, like a legacy passed on individual to another. If Mr. Collins had not cut the advertising budget, there couldn’t have caused the results that were not expected. The situation couldn’t have reached an irrevocable level where the sales of the company‘s sales decreased and the company’s was unable to sustain its customers and employees. Collins had good intents of sustaining the company and boosting company’s sales, which became a disappointment in the end. Collins believed that the company could benefit from the cut budget. (Espinosa & Walker, 2011).
Applying Senge’s principles, the situation might look dynamically intricate. If Mr. Collins had not thought of sustaining the company by cutting the advertising budget and if he had understood the need to fully finance the advertising campaign for the new product, then he could have saved the company from the problems it is experiencing after making the decision (Daniel, 2012).
Secondly, Mr. Collins intentions were meant to save the finances and use it to boost company’s sales. Therefore, Collins intentions were good and he cannot be blamed for the entire situation; neither the employees, customers nor other stakeholders. The employees and customers blames Collins for the decision he made .This means that the circle of blaming would never stop, as the situation was demanding in nature and the situation is seen from one person’s perspective. Therefore, this situation cannot be looked from one perspective, since both occurrences are interdependent (Espinosa & Walker, 2011).
At this moment, an individual arrives to the circle of causality. In many situations, people can look at issues or circumstances in a linear plane: Mr. Collins cut the budget for the sake of the company and never considered decisions in relation to the sales, employees and customers of the company (Espinosa & Walker, 2011). But in the real sense, the whole situation is intertwined; if the company had not advertising plan, Collins could have not cut the budget. The vicious occurrences of situations became continuous till end. This situation functions according to the “feedback” system. In this situation, there is an element of both cause and effect applicable in Collin’s situation.
Despite scarce resources, they are vital for the concerned individual, in this case, or company, customers and employees. Individuals’ misappropriation of resources and financial decisions will adversely affect others not directly in the situation. This scenario can also be applied in an organization structure, where if there is a single worker in an organization, the organization will not benefit as well as the single worker (Espinosa & Walker, 2011).