Suzanne_de_Passe_at_Motown_Productions_(A1)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY How can the President of Motown Productions, winner of two Emmy Awards, an NAACP Image award winner and recipient of many honors, overcome the seemingly insurmountable task of steering this acclaimed company into a new era of diversification and rapid growth without losing the “Motown mystique”' The Problem Statement points out that Motown Productions’ present operational structure was not conducive to its rapid growth and the fresh opportunities that the changing industry environment was providing. In the Data Analysis segment, we take a brief look at Motown’s history and review its’ operational structure. It speaks to Motown’s growth, strategic direction, and at the same time highlights some of the company’s weaknesses. More importantly, it identifies the company’s need for change. We determined that among the Key decision criteria were: quick implementation, cost effectiveness, maintaining work quality, staff camaraderie, and meeting production commitment deadlines. The Alternative Analysis looks at three options available to Motown (MP) and weighs them against the aforementioned key decision criteria. The three options were: 1) Outsourcing / subcontracting production commitments, 2) Maintain Motown’s current operational structure and 3) Change the operational structure by dividing production commitments among the executives Recommendation: After careful review of the data and a thorough analysis of the various alternatives through the lens of the key decision criteria, we recommended that the production commitments be subcontracted and that de Passe and her executives act as an inspectorate for the outsourced work. The Action and Plan Implementation segment, details how we put our recommendation into action. PROBLEM STATEMENT The increased growth and new opportunities presented several challenges for de Passe as Motown’s leader. Her company’s operational structure was not conducive to the rapid growth and new opportunities presenting themselves. They could no longer afford to produce a single production at a time but rather had to maintain a wide range of production commitments simultaneously and develop new projects. Key timing and a smooth transition would prove crucial for MP. The problem touches on a number of related functional areas, namely, operational structure and processes, financing, and human resources. DATA ANALYSIS To build on MP’s successes, gain a more secure financial base, as well as more control over the company’s destiny in Hollywood’s uncertain environment, de Passe searched for projects that diversified MP’s production portfolio from being solely “music” or “black entertainment”. By 1986, MP had four “Go” projects with production commitments of $60 million, up from $12 million in the previous year. This alone was a 500% increase year over year and does not take into consideration the fact that there were six other projects that were in the final stages of development. It was this rapid growth that created the challenge. The growth was too significant for MP to continue doing business the way it was. Obviously, if they were to continue with their present operational structure, their financial and staff resources, would be stretched beyond their ability to function efficiently. Development costs were already proving to be a burden on the company. de Passe herself started to realize that the exhausting physical demands could potentially lead to potential burn out. Moreover, de Passe had to change her management style focus from being short term and reactionary to having a longer term focus and being proactive. MP had already started to diversify itself through new projects such as “Motown 25: Yesterday, Today and Forever” and “Motown Returns to the Apollo.” These projects made a mark in the industry and publicized MP. The business opportunities such as cable television, programme syndication, and home video production made it imperative for MP to look at its company’s structure to take advantage of these business opportunities, remain competitive, and continue to meet the needs of its customers. Obviously, Suzanne and her team of executives would be most affected by the challenge facing the company. But at the same time, one would have to acknowledge that the pace of growth was too significant for anyone in the company not to feel it. De Passe had to also consider MP’s highly participatory approach and decide if this management approach would be conducive moving forward with the continuous growth of MP and its wealth of business opportunities. It was noted by several Agents and Producers that MP had a great environment to work in, but they were also known for sometimes “procrastinating and that communications to people outside the company were often slow”. Exhibit 4 noted comments by several of the Industry’s elite which generally stated that decisive action was necessary to survive in this fast paced industry. With new projects on the horizon, there could be no room for procrastination. The case further notes that MP would sometimes be unaware of outside opinion. In order to action De Passe’s creative vision and to capitalize on the industry’s new opportunities, MP would have to be “sensitive to the demands of the market in order to be successful.” This would go a long way in determining the success of future productions. de Passe and her team had worked very hard to establish MP’s reputation for delivering high quality work. She was diligent in her hiring and it paid off. She was able to preserve the family atmosphere that was unique to Motown and maintain staff camaraderie. People were happy to work for her. It was very important that the company met its production commitment deadlines, and produced the type of quality work it had come to be known for under her leadership. The room for error was slim at best. Being able to lead the company through this period of change was a challenge in and of itself. Failure could lead to Motown’s doom but a successful and smooth transition could lead to a bright and profitable future. KEY DECISION CRITERIA  Work Quality: The quality of the work must be preserved in order to maintain credibility and the good reputation recently re-established.  Deliver on Projects Effectively: MP must be able to deliver multiple productions at the same time and meet demanding production schedules in a timely manner.  Maintain Staff Camaraderie: MP was known for its family oriented atmosphere or “mystique” which distinguished them from their competitors. As this is a form of corporate branding and extremely important to de Passe and MP’s employees, it would be beneficial for MP to maintain staff camaraderie.  Cost Effectiveness: de Passe has to make sure which ever alternative she decides on is cost effective  Quick Implementation: Due to the industry’s fast pace, de Passe has to ensure that the determined solution can be implemented quickly and effectively. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Alternative One The first alternative considered was the possibility of out-sourcing the production commitments. In this scenario, de Passe and her team of executives would sub-contract the work and act as a reviewing body for the sub-contracted work. This option, although it has its fair share of challenges, meets all of the key decision criteria. Instead of de Passe and her executives being involved in every aspect of the projects, they would outsource the productions to production company(ies). The hired production company(ies) would be responsible for the physical production of MP’s projects. This option alleviates de Passe and her executives of the day to day tasks of production. They would still however, be responsible for the “development” and oversight of the projects, and ensure that productions are being done in the exceptional, “Motown” way. de Passe was known for being a selective recruiter with a keen eye for talent. For example, de Passe hired Michael Weisbarth from “Embassy” to head MP’s television department. That year MP produced “Motown 25- Yesterday, Today and Forever”, which was a huge success. This “eye for talent” would be vital for the selection of an appropriate production company(ies) to whom the work could be sub-contracted. Further, this option allows MP the opportunity to deliver on crucial deadlines for each project. The experience and expertise of the Motown executive team would also serve as a business contingency plan in the event that the contracted production company lagged. In de Passe’s opinion maintaining the staff camaraderie, was crucial to any business. Scattering the employees in different locales and hiring new staff in those locales would make it difficult to maintain the family atmosphere that Motown was known for. However, with the executive team remaining in tact and acting as a reviewing body for each of the out-sourced productions, this would give the team the opportunity to maintain the close knit family atmosphere. Further, it would allow the executives to continue to use their expertise and creativity as they had done previously. de Passe would continue her supervisory role among the executives. The reduced workload (due to less “hands on” involvement would allow the company the opportunity to further diversify and meet the challenges of expansion. It would also allow more time to focus on staff issues and projects. This option would be cost effective because de Passe would have prior knowledge of the cost for production commitments and could therefore reject or accept proposals based on her financial budget. For an example in 1986 when MP was dealing with “Nightlife”, MP leased a New York studio and had to hire 40 full time staff. In the outsourcing scenario, de Passe would simply contract a Production Company in New York rather than hiring full time staff members or leasing a studio. She would also eliminate travel expenses, living arrangements for her executives who had to move to different locations to oversee different projects. The outsourced production company would be responsible for the artists, agents, properties, rough drafts of scripts etc. De Passe and her team, would only have to review the work of the production company at pre-determined stages, provide feedback to the companies and have the necessary adjustments made. By thorough research and her knowledge of the industry, de Passe and her team of executives, would simply select the most suitable choices among the production companies, carefully prepare the contract, and hire the company. This allows for quick implementation and help to prevent burnout among de Passé and her team. Option 1 would allow de Passe the opportunity to be a little more long term oriented, decisive, and proactive in the industry, putting them in a position to be front runners and avoid becoming irrelevant in this fast paced industry. Slow communication with outsiders and procrastination would be a thing of the past. Alternative Two : The second alternative considered maintaining MP’s current operational structure. A change in the operational structure of the company may not be absolutely necessary. It appears that MP’s staff were under-utilized in the previous years when the company worked on only one project at a time. For example in 1985 MP produced three network television programmes a feat it had also accomplished in 1978. In 1986, the Nightlife show was MP’s most demanding production in terms of time and resources. Its production necessitated de Passe, Coston and Hechtman’s temporary relocation to New York (for about six to eight weeks) in order to assist with the pre-production and the first weeks of the programme being aired, after which time the programme would be turned over to the line producer hired by de Passe. The other 3 “go” productions were in Los Angeles and varied in the time required for development and production. “Fit for Life” home video probably would not require much production time as it was a one-off programme. Motown on Showtime comprised 6 shows, 70% of which was edited clips from MP’s artists’ past work. Additionally, the production deadlines were not concurrent, even though work on the productions had to be done concurrently. MP’s staff is not precluded from operating as usual. The team would have to properly manage the various projects to ensure that critical time-lines were met even in the absence of other Executives. de Passe had worked diligently to develop her team and had already demonstrated her confidence in their decision-making abilities. The executives were assigned specific projects for which they had financial and deal-making responsibility. The test would be for de Passe to occasionally accept decisions derived in her absence, which might be difficult for her given her orientation for being deeply involved in every aspect of all MP’s productions. The advantages to maintaining the same approach would be that it would cost the company nothing and speed of implementation would not be an issue. de Passe and her team would continue to maintain creative control over MP’s productions, thereby ensuring the high quality. Staff camaraderie would be maintained and each member of the team would be able to continue to do what they are “successful at”. In the event the number of projects grew to exceed the team’s capability to manage them, de Passe would have the option of employing additional staff and ensuring that the all-important participative, family culture of MP was maintained. The main disadvantage to this approach is that de Passe would definitely be required to manage time-lines more strictly, present and communicate their decisions to interested parties more promptly, which had been identified as one of the company’s weaknesses. This option appears to meet most of the key decision criteria. The challenge is going to be whether or not the company would be able to meet demanding production schedules in a timely manner. Alternative Three The third alternative considers changing the company’s operational structure by assigning specific productions to particular executives. de Passe may wish to consider the alternative of assigning a specific production(s) to a particular executive who would be solely responsible for the administrative and creative oversight and development of the production(s) assigned. This would mean that MP’s staff would no longer work as a single team involved with all the details of a single production, but, instead, MP’s staff would be subdivided into 6 teams, with each of the executives (excluding de Passe) focusing on one or more projects better utilizing MP’s limited human resources. MP already had the necessary cultural foundation and operational structure to support this third alternative. MP had never been organized on a departmentalized basis, it did not have a strong functional orientation, which promotes an in-depth knowledge of a given discipline. Instead, MP’s staff had always operated as a single team, with all team members being exposed to the issues and ultimately taking part in the decision making process. MP’s team operated as a think tank in which all members had an opportunity to learn and develop their specific knowledge and expertise in various aspects of the creative and administrative production process. One of the challenges of MP’s work environment is that an executive faced with having sole responsibility and accountability for a project(s) may not have the necessary core competencies essential to producing a high quality project. The team base approach permits members of the team to play to their strengths. de Passe would act as the executive producer, ensuring that all projects were up to the required standards. The implementation can be effected easily, swiftly and with minimal cost. . The Team base approach allowed MP to maintain complete control of the development and production of its projects, which is what de Passe attributes MP’s success to. The teams would most likely enable MP to meet its current and future production commitments and the-teams could be deployed to different locales as the need arises without disrupting other -teams. Although it has its fair share of challenges, this option also meets all of the key decision criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS After careful review of the data and close examination of the alternative solutions, we recommend MP chooses Alternative 1. Alternative One appears to be the best solution to the challenges brought on by the rapid growth and enables MP to produce projects simultaneously. Outsourcing is a form of delegative leadership. Under an outsourcing agreement, de Passe would delegate the production of projects to a trusted independent production house, thereby relieving MP’s executives of the day-to-day operations of the company’s productions. We acknowledge that outsourcing is a very risky undertaking. De Passe has demonstrated her ability to identify talent and has worked with production houses in the past therefore she should have no difficulty identifying a reputable and trustworthy partner(s). ACTION & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. Because the outsourcing of the Production Commitment(s) is a crucial and historical step in MP’s history, de Passe should liaise with Berry Gordy on this idea. 2. de Passe should arrange an executive meeting with all of MP’s executives to inform them about the idea, what it will entail for MP and how they would be affected. This meeting gives the executives an opportunity to express their concerns. 3. A staff meeting should be held to advise all supporting staff of the outsourcing decision. This would help to alleviate fear, and the spread of false information. 4. de Passe and her executives should review MP’s current projects, and pay close attention to the stages and deadlines for each project. 5. de Passe should review MP’s current financial position in order to determine her financial budget for outsourcing. She would have to weigh profitability. de Passe and her Executives would have to determine whether they would allow the outsourced Production Company to either take over ALL of the projects, those that are a “GO”, or those that are in the “final stages of Development.” 6. Request and Review proposals from Production Companies and decide on the best candidates, prepare a thorough Contract detailing MP’s vision and expectations for each project. This is perhaps the most critical aspect of the Action and Implementation plan because the selection of the Production Company(ies) and the wording of the contract could be the deciding factor for MP’s demise in the industry or gaining an edge over their competitors. 7. De Passe and her Executives would oversee the outsourced projects on an ongoing basis to ensure quality is maintained and deadlines met.