Background
You are a relationship manager at Knights, a well-regarded boutique investment bank, where your director has been building a relationship with the finance director of Inks plc, a printing supplies manufacturer, for many months. Knowing that Inks has recently pulled out of a large acquisition deal, he believes that it is likely to be looking for another opportunity in the future.
Last week, this relationship building seemed to have paid off when Knights was approached by Inks plc and asked to tender for some corporate finance work. As ever, the time scale for producing the proposal document was tight, but the firm had been preparing for such an opportunity and seized it gratefully.
The team worked round the clock to produce the proposal document and yesterday it was finally sent to the finance director of Inks plc, using the firm’s email system. All the members of the team are confident that the proposal should win, as the team includes a leading industry expert, has recently delivered a highly publicised and successful piece of work and your director has a good relationship with the finance director of Inks plc.
The engagement is expected to be highly lucrative and is vital to your team to reduce the possibility of redundancy, which is an ever-present threat in today’s difficult environment.
This morning, you were shocked when your director summoned you into his office and asked you to explain why the proposal document was sent to Inks plain an email with a footer stating:
Our staff have chosen this year to support the charity Trees for Tomorrow.
‘Is it really necessary to print this email – think before you print.’
You explained that the proposal was sent using a standard Knights email. Knights customises the footers of all its emails on a regular basis to promote various products and issues. For example, last quarter the footer promoted the ethical funds advisory service which Knights offers and read: ‘Ethical funds – we can help you – think before you invest.’
You reminded him that the current footer had been given to Knights’ staff to promote their chosen charity, which encourages environmental awareness, and currently all the firm’s email footers read: ‘Is it really necessary to print this email – think before you print’. You had not thought to remove the footer before sending the proposal.
Apparently, your director had received a rather irate telephone call from the finance director of Inks plc. The finance director had been offended by the footer, reminding your director that, as a leading manufacturer of printer inks, Inks’ profits could be jeopardised if people took the footer seriously and reduced the amount of printing they performed. Your director had been told in no uncertain terms that, unless the footer was removed immediately from all Knights’ emails, Knights’ proposal would not be considered further.
Your director had indicated to Inks finance director that the email footers would be removed, noting that it was only a temporary footer anyhow. Your director asked you to determine who in the firm is responsible for the footers and to have it removed immediately.
Although you can understand the director’s desire to appease Inks plc and so remain in the tender process, hopefully winning this highly lucrative piece of work, you can’t help feeling that responding to a potential client in this manner is wrong and is, effectively, suggesting that the firm will do whatever it takes to win lucrative work.
You are conscious also that many of your colleagues, who support Knights’ charitable initiatives and worked hard to get the bank to agree to use of the email footer, will be extremely angry if it is removed under these circumstances.
The dilemma
If Knights changes the footer on its corporate emails in order to win the work:
- What impact will this have on Knights’ reputation, which relies on the firm acting and being seen to act with complete integrity and objectivity
- What message does this send to clients with regard to Knights’ integrity and willingness to stand up for its beliefs?
- What would the bank’s stakeholders think, given that Knights advertises its green credentials and currently has a high ranking in the Business in the Community index?
- What will be staff reaction to what might be regarded as outside interference in an internal matter, the firm’s support for a charity chosen by the staff?
On the other hand, you could argue that:
- With the prospect of redundancies in the air this is no time to get defensive about such a seemingly trivial matter.
- Knights exists to make money and this will be a highly profitable potential client. Without the income which business such as Inks might provide, the bank would not be able to be so generous in its charitable support, nor employ so many staff.
- Changing the email footer is not a big deal – there are many other worthwhile messages that could be written instead.
- Footers are changed regularly and no-one else needs to know why the footer was changed a little earlier than normal.
Verdict
The matter should be brought to the attention of the head of corporate finance so that an appropriate response can be discussed, hopefully defusing the situation.
Knights’ reputation relies on it adhering to the highest standards of integrity and objectivity and, ideally, it should not accede to the demands of Inks plc by changing the offending footer.
Instead, it would be preferable for the head of corporate finance to explain the bank’s position (and reason for the decision) to the finance director of Inks plc and seek to persuade him that the footer, on the one hand, and Knights’ highly attractive proposal, on the other, should not be seen as incompatible. After all, inviting Knights to tender was presumably influenced, at least in part, by its reputation.
By standing up for its beliefs and explaining to Inks plc why it is reluctant to change the email footer, Knights should be able to maintain its reputation for integrity and trust. In essence, the question is the extent to which you or your firm should stand up for your own beliefs and policies and the extent to which you are prepared to dilute these in pursuit of commercial objectives.
However, it is pertinent to consider the impact which failure to win this mandate might have on staff numbers and, when faced with such a decision, staff might feel less hostile to the potential loss of the footer, the reason for its removal notwithstanding. Accordingly, it would be sensible to put the facts to the staff, so that they can be aware of the dilemma. Their response may be different in times when business is plentiful to when business opportunities are scarce.
In this instance, the trigger for this difficulty is something that is apparently quite trivial and the key to resolving it must be to ensure that it is not allowed to become more significant. Since appearing to give in, on the one hand, or losing the business on the other, might each be seen as a sign of failure, it is probably necessary to spend more time on resolving this issue than it might warrant indifferent circumstances and, if unavoidable, give in to the client, for the good of those staff members who might otherwise lose their job, having first made them aware of this possibility.
Further reading