This memo analyses the dilemma for Michael, who is the global category director for rums in Lafleur SA; in which he tries to make decision about his career. In the case called “Into the Fray” there is a conflict between two candidates of a new position after the resignation of the manager of Lafleur SA, Lucien Beaumont. The main reason of that conflict is the differences between these two candidates. One of them is Micheal and the other one is Danielle Harcourt who is the global category director for vodkas and liqueurs of the company.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!


order now

Both of these two directors are successful in their jobs but; the difference of them is their ability of politics. Danielle has strong relationships with the existing employees of the company and she tries to take the new position in Lafleur by using her relations with them. She talks with everyone and tells her future plans, so she tries to get the support of other workers in the company and introduce her for getting new job. On the other hand Micheal is a task-oriented person. He does not engage with political relationships within the company.

He trusts his success therefore he believes that he does not need political relationships with other employees. That is why he does not talk with anyone in the company. However when he realizes what Danielle tries to do, he confers his best friend Albert and his wife. They tell him that he should also play politics like Danielle does. However when he figures out that he received a new offer from the CEO of the company. I think it means that he loses the position of Beaumont and it is because he despises the importance of political relationships within the company.

Although Micheal loses the Beaumont’s position he gets a new offer from Hoffman, which is about another new position in China. In that point there is a dilemma for Micheal, whether to accept or refuse this new offering. When he tells that situation to his wife Karen, she does not want to go to china because she has a career in there and she does not want to put it aside. Furthermore she believes that moving to China and taking away their children from his school and friends will not be good and easy for him.

That is why she does not support that idea. In this point I think Micheal should balance the advantages and disadvantages of either staying there or leaving that city and moving to China for raising his career in better positions. In my opinion, Micheal should accept the new job in China because he wants to enhance his career and if he goes there, he will have a new opportunity of adding international experience to his career. Furthermore if he goes there, it may be easier for him to turn back to New York or Paris.

Also if he wants he may start to work in another company by using the advantage of his international experiences. These are the advantages of going to China but apart from these, moving with his family to China will be a very radical change for them. This is a negative side that he should be considered as his family do not want to move there. However he may leave his family in New York and move to China alone. He may stay few years in there and he can turn back to New York after he finds new opportunities in other companies or promotes to other position in Lafleur.

That is why I think going to China will be more beneficial for him in terms of his career. By making these analyses, I tried to point out that, there lots of conflicts in business life. In that case Micheal has to decide whether to move to china for his career or whether to stay in New York for the happiness of his family. In such circumstances we should figure out the advantages and disadvantages of it. While balancing these we should consider our own goals and also our constraints for it.

For instance in Micheal’s situation his family’s requests are the constraints for him and rising in his career is the goal of him. After the detailed analysis of whole situation we have to choose the best alternative for ourselves that fits our goals and benefits. As a result of that we can make our decision and apply it. I think this is the best way of decision-making in such circumstances. These are my ideas and analysis about the case called Into The Fray. If there is anything that you find unclear about my case analysis, please let me know via e-mail: [email protected] bilkent. edu. tr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *