SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats


The Build Trust First Team (BT1) interviewed a relatively young Canadian division of an international organization based out of Europe.  This well-established organization has five main business units with our focus being on a division of one of these central units. Through our process, we identified some challenges being experienced by the Canadian company that could quickly be addressed by its corporate head office. However, as the Canadian company is set up to be highly autonomous, we have focused on proposing recommendations solely at this organizational level.

Within the following SWOT analysis “Company X” will refer to the specific division of the international organization we are focusing on within Canada.  BT1 identified Company X’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, through a combination of interview questions with a top-level manager and as well as a member of the Human Resource department. Questions were composed using Lepsinger’s (2010) recommended six Bridge Builders in a Likert scale format, as well as Hughes, Beatty, and Dinwoodie’s (2014) questions for measuring latitude of risk (p. 130) and organizational capacity for action (p. 131).  BT1 then asked clarifying questions to ensure correct understanding and conclusions.

Established in 2008, Company X is a facility management provider and offers all the services in the facility management value chain.  They are committed to offering excellent, professional services to their customers in order to fulfill the overall vision of being a global industry leader within the next few years.


  1. The organization has a global reputation and reach, as well as international expertise.
  2. Worldwide, their portfolio of resources available is quite substantial. As a result, they can offer a customer a full value chain of resources that are highly efficient and effective.
  3. Encourages collaboration and innovation.
  4. Socially and environmentally responsible.
  5. Strong unionized employee group retention.
  6. Has strategic objectives with shared responsibilities across the organization.
  7. Company X provides services across the whole value chain within their specific industry.
  8. Internal management software and use of technology – quick responses to work orders from customers.
  9. Internal collaboration has increased since the new VP arrived.
  10. A strong code of ethics.
  11. Has an organizational-wide strategic plan. Company X understands how their work fits into the bigger picture.
  12. Defined and measurable strategic objectives.
  13. A dashboard of key metrics to determine the success of strategies.
  14. Monthly review of each area to determine the progress and areas to address.
  15. Collaborative management style.
  16. Employees are geared towards change and implementing things quickly.


  1. The organizational brand is relatively unknown and unestablished within North America.
  2. Company X is ten years old.  A young entity within the industry.
  3. Current bidding strategy works against them.  First bids are lower than usual in order to win the bid.  When subsequent projects begin the bidding process, the new bid is higher which makes the customer a little wary.
  4. The non-unionized employee group receives lower compensation, in comparison to unionized employees who are often subordinates, resulting in low morale and poor retention of non-unionized employees.
  5. Little opportunity to differentiate within the actual services provided because it is highly regulated.  The focus on differentiation is within customer service – which all competitors focus on addressing.
  6. Poorly defined internal staffing culture.
  7. Avoidance of conflict within Company X.
  8. Not all levels of employees could identify the Mission, Vision, and Values of Company X.
  9. Organizational change comes from Europe and often is ambiguous. Therefore change is sometimes a little slow to implement.
  10. Developing values coordination and cooperation.  However it Company X is moving from a very siloed reality, and there are still barriers to be addressed.
  11. Company X’s SLT does not have a charter.
  12. Interpersonal dynamics within Company X’s SLT.


  1. Differentiate within the customer service experience.
  2. Expertise and resources within the organization.
  3. Increase services provided to existing customers (expanding current contracts).
  4. The organization is at a growth lifecycle stage right now and has yet to develop an established and consistent culture across all sites
  5. Marketing as a global player – with experience, expertise, resources that competitors may not have.
  6. Technologies are available to them.
  7. Educate the market on how to be more efficient and effective – Industry showcase?
  8. Instead of competing with the local, more established businesses, can they become a resource to those companies to be more effective?
  9. Partnerships within constructions projects in Canada.
  10. The market trend is moving in the right direction of outsourcing services.  Company X needs to determine how to use this trend for their advantage.
  11. Company X is more performance driven than politically driven.  They need to leverage this, so it becomes ingrained within the culture they need to develop.


  1. Lack of brand recognition within North America. There are already several well-established competitors who have a monopoly in the industry due to years of partnerships and established reputation.
  2. The current size of Company X reduces the ability for mistakes and humility. If they fail with a large contract – it will severely damage their reputation.
  3. Established competitor/potential customer partnerships exist that they are trying to break into.
  4. Convincing cities and corporations to spend money to save money.  Cities are often trying to save money in the short-term due to political cycles/agendas.
  5. Legislation – limits use of certain products within North America.
  6. Potential customers view Company X as “small” and unproven.
  7. Many potential customers are self-performing the services Company X provides.  How do they convince them to spend the money on experts?

Based on this SWOT analysis and following an in-depth discussion, BT1 determined five recommendations for Company X.  The following is a summary of the recommendations and a further assessment of the likelihood of successfully implementing these changes.


Our first recommendation focuses on suggested changes for weaknesses identified within the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and the level of support of trust and collaboration efforts. A key idea around the support required for addressing collaboration and conflict comes from Lepsinger (2010) who explains it is nearly impossible to achieve goals without the collective efforts of all team members, yet we know these efforts are incredibly challenging to attain. In this regard, BT1 noticed an interesting response from a particular question in the interview regarding whether the SLT was cooperative or competitive.  The respondent answered that “you can be cooperative and competitive at the same time.” We want to explore the idea of coopetition with Company X as there is much merit in this approach and we see this as a way to develop and strengthen trust and foster collaboration.

BT1 is recommending a two-pronged approach to developing trust and collaboration efforts. The first of these would be a facilitated discussion amongst SLT member to consider this process as a tool to further strengthen and encourage the idea of cooperation and competition, or coopetition, and to ensure it flourishes within the SLT.

Ghobadi and D’Ambra (2011) in Figure 1 below provides a helpful model which depicts how coopetitive knowledge sharing can be a constructive approach to inter-organizational functioning. BT1 suggests a facilitated a half-day Coopetition Workshop with the SLT, using the below model, to enable the team to cooperatively articulate each of these values and determine a follow-on process allowing for this to become de rigueur within the SLT.

During the SWOT analysis of Company X, a noted internal weakness was the absence of a general level of trust, respect, and collaboration amongst the SLT with three of four members perceived to be working at their full potential and one member is perceived not to be performing similarly. Lepsinger (2010) provides insightful perspective with his Bridge Builder 6: Increase Coordination and Cooperation explanation where he explains “we need to gain the support of others for our ideas and constructively resolve differences” (p. 180). It is clear all members of an SLT must be pulling in the same direction and should make every effort to avoid sideways energy which creates a distraction and results in missed goals (Stanley, 2018).

In order for Company X to addresses identified weaknesses and move these towards positions of strength, specifically around the need to ensure all four members of the SLT perceive performance to the fullest potential of each member, the second prong of our two-pronged change recommendation is for the SLT to consider completing an After Action Review (AAR) which is a systematic method of learning from your actions.” The six key steps of an AAR (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999 as cited in Hughes et al., 2014, p. 133) are as follows:

  • What was the intent? This question would be answered by the SLT to understand what was the original intent on why to bid on the arena contract.
  • What happened? The SLT would go through many questions helping to clarify what led up to the bid proposal, what were the results, what were the communications methods used, connections that worked or didn’t work and why, and a run-through of key events to clarify why they happened as they did.
  • What was learned? What does Company X know now about their bidding process and the resulting successful contract that they did not know before?
  • What actions must happen? What information and experiential knowledge can be understood about this successful bid and captured in policies, best practices documents, or Standard Operating Procedures for the next successful bid?
  • Take action. This step is required and will help to create an Action Register to ensure actions have owners, dates, and accountability to ensure they occur.
  • Disseminate the findings. The challenge here is how to ensure this becomes corporate knowledge and part of the success culture of Company X.

From the information gained from the respondent during the SWOT review, a recent success relating to a contract on a 3000 seat arena but with the realization there was no analysis of what steps were taken to win the bid successfully. By walking through the AAR, the SLT will have a much clearer picture of why the arena contract bid was successful and have strong evidence to replicate this throughout the ongoing bid process.

Perhaps a great way to sum up the value of this process is captured when (Shafer, 2012) in his blog refers to leadership expert Andy Stanley who states “If you don’t know why something is working when it is working, you won’t know how to fix it when it breaks.”


BT1’s second recommendation is to address areas of concern around the internal culture of Company X.  The turnover of salaried workers is one of the key identified weaknesses in the SWOT analysis. This is partly due to the lack of professional development available (Recommendation #3) but also a result of undefined organizational culture.  As one of their organizational goals is to become an employer of choice, culture development will improve the retention of the salaried workforce.

Cultivating a shared vision based on core values within an organization is an effective way to develop organizational trust and direction. In order to create a shared vision, Company X needs to form and preserve a core ideology through ongoing changing strategies. “Over time, cultural norms must change, strategy must change, product lines must change; goals must change; competencies must change, reward systems must change. Ultimately, the only thing a company should not change over time is its core ideology – that is, if it wants to be a visionary company” (Kotter, 2012, p. 82).  An approach BT1 recommends is the development of a Team Leadership Strategy that must be owned by Company X’s SLT.

Team Leadership Strategy

We recommend the SLT develop its collaboration practices and work towards a shared leadership culture. In order to accomplish this, the SLT should seek to solidify shared leadership responsibilities with senior operational managers and with employees with leadership potential. We encourage and support the relatively flat hierarchy that already exists within Company X and acknowledges the employees generally are very committed. Company X would do well to use this to its benefit by taking steps to foster a more innovative and collaborative workplace.

This starts with the SLT focusing on the desired future structure of their organization to achieve strategic success. Shared leadership improves and builds stronger, more robust organizations based on energized relationships and enthusiasm for the future success of Company X.  BT1 suggests a team leadership model for the SLT to consider as we believe it will produce beneficial outcomes across the organization.

Figure 2: Outcomes of an Effective Team Leadership Strategy

Fostering Shared Mission, Vision, and Values

Members of the SLT team will support Company X’s organizational mission, vision, and values through modelling desired behaviours and culture.  By considering multiple perspectives, Company X will be able to create conditions which stimulate shared learning.

Valuing Diversity

Having a diversified workforce increases a variety of skills and promotes individual and group differences for the benefit of Company X employees, the organization, and the community as a whole. BT1 recommends individual personalities and behaviours need to be the first step in creating diversity in the team-building process because skills and knowledge can be learned, but personalities and behaviours are particular traits.  One method of identifying different personality traits and behaviours is through assessments such as the Birkman Assessment and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Supporting Collaboration and Partnerships

It will be essential for this model to enhance the collaborative environment of Company X and seek to remove silos which exist unnecessarily within the organization. By providing team members with opportunities to have input in the decision-making process as well as the ability to work together more frequently, this will help to establish trust-based relationships and overall increase collaboration.  Singh (2015) indicates, “Companies that foster/prioritize collaboration and teamwork will have a very high chance of beating and outlasting the competition” (p. 1). A team leadership plan will address current weaknesses and prepare for Company X’s future organizational success concurrently.

Ideally, BT1 would like to see a stabilized workforce that is influenced and led by the SLT Team and other influential leaders at Company X. Together, with a culture of trust, courage, motivation and reliable performance, Company X can build a strong team and enable change to their culture.

Encouraging Creation and Innovation

By cultivating a new approach to team leadership, there will be ongoing opportunities for collaborative efforts to accomplish goals and solve problems.  Providing more opportunities to others inside the organization, it will encourage creativity in others and facilitate the implementation of new, innovative ideas in the context of Company X corporate vision.

Conflict Strategy

In addition to a Team Leadership strategy, Company X should strongly consider revisiting their current conflict practice.

In the SWOT analysis, avoiding conflict is a current norm at Company X. (Levi, 2017) reveals “team members use one of the following five styles to handle conflicts and disagreements:

  1. Avoidance: trying to ignore the issue or deny there is a problem
  2. Accommodation: giving up one’s position in order to be agreeable
  3. Confrontation: acting aggressively and trying to get one’s way
  4. Compromise: seeking a balance so that everyone gets at least a part of what they want
  5. Collaboration: searching for a solution that satisfies everyone” (p. 153).

There are several ways to deal with conflict and currently, Company X uses the avoidance strategy. Research reveals “fortunately, conflict also represents an opportunity. Managed effectively, conflict can help break through counterproductive ways of thinking, stimulate creativity and innovation, and ultimately bring people closer together” (Derosa, 2018).

Derosa (2018) suggests following these recommendations:

  1. Don’t run from the conflict: Ignoring the conflict will lead to worse outcomes. Speak about the conflict and identify common ground to find resolution
  2. Understand everyone’s position: Determine the motivation and the explanation behind the conflict. Come to a mutual decision to overcome the conflict
  3. View conflict as a growth opportunity: Conflict can lead to productive outcomes and by having healthy debates, it allows for innovation and learning.

BT1 recommends Company X commit to establishing a positive team culture and not to avoid conflict. We recommend it will be crucial for the SLT to demonstrate mutual respect, integrity, and excellence to resolve conflict within the SLT team. Our goal is for Company X to develop a trusting environment which encourages healthy conflict; viewing it as a positive team building experience across the organization.


The third area of concern is the lack of employee development within Company X.  BT1 recognizes that Company X makes a concerted effort to hire exceptional people with both the skills and the attitude for development and growth.  As Company X is relatively young, and the progress to expand the business has put a strain on financial resources, it became evident a bottleneck now exists within the organizational structure of Company X.  Employees are eager to be developed and desiring to lead at a higher level. However, currently, there is minimal opportunity for promotion. This is due in part to the limited resources needed to sustain higher salaries, but also the structure itself limits the ability for redistribution.  As the vision of the organization is to become a global industry leader, it is essential to ensure that employee skills progress hand-in-hand with the business strategy. Company X must ensure it continues to recruit, retain, and develop the right people to fulfill its mission and vision.

BT1 recommends Company X analyze the cost/benefits of the current organizational structure.  Through the SWOT analysis, it was discovered that the current structure is a constraint for both organizational and individual growth (Hughes et al., 2014). It is essential to have the right people in the right place at the right time. However, Company X has limited resources, and the structure does not support the growth of staff.  Further analysis is required to determine if financial resources are being used unnecessarily within the salary budget. Streamlining of redundant positions for a season would allow the necessary restructuring and freeing of financial resources to create new, strategic roles such as a Marketing Department.

A further benefit of opening up new positions is the positive impact of potential promotions.  Promotions can serve as a reward system which can be a strong motivator for individuals who should advance to a higher level (Galbraith, 2014).  As suggested by Miller (n.d.), the Human Resource (HR) department should consider long and short-term objectives of the organization and identify the necessary skills, knowledge, and competencies that support those goals. If the current employees have those skills or capabilities, then there is a need to move them into these positions.

Additionally, the HR department should also consider the benefits of creating a formal Development Program. Such programs enable employees to be more effective and knowledgeable, but they can also improve employee satisfaction and reduce turnover (Miller, n.d.) which is a notable weakness among Company X’s non-unionized employees.  Employees with high potential require the room to demonstrate and develop their skills. As an organization focuses on developing individual competencies, it will build their collective capability. This is supported by Hughes et al. (2014) through their dual leader to leadership development approach which is “critical to building the depth and breadth of strategic leadership in the organization” (p. 261).


A notable weakness of Company X was the poor morale and high turnover rate of non-union employees, in comparison to their unionized counterparts. It is suspected by the SLT that this is likely due to non-union employees typically receiving a lower compensation than union employees, despite that non-union employees often occupy higher status positions. The first step in addressing this problem is to identify the underlying issues and determine what the employees care about the most. To gather this information, we recommend issuing an annual employee engagement survey for all employees. This would give employees an opportunity to voice their concerns, which the organization could then address, and allow for the long-term tracking of satisfaction levels among its employees.

If the results of the survey showed non-union employees were dissatisfied with their compensation plans, we recommend Company X commit to plans to conduct a review of each non-union position description, a thorough salary market research analysis, and a total compensation analysis for each position. A vital component of the review process for each position description would include the utilization of the RACIN model (Lepsinger, 2010, pp. 176-177). The use of the RACIN model, which according to Lepsinger (2010) is a tool to identify “the five levels of authority and involvement – Responsibility, Approve, Consult, Inform, and Not Involved”, would enable the organization to assess whether the employee’s job scope has changed significantly enough to warrant a possible salary increase (p. 176). The salary market research analysis would ensure each position’s salary is comparable to what other organizations are paying employees in similar roles.

After the total compensation analysis, we recommend Company X offer its non-unionized employees a fair compensation plan which would include a fixed salary, an annual merit increase, bonuses, and employee benefits. Galbraith (2014) explains how merit increases can help with the overall motivation for employees, while “bonuses are a flexible and adaptable form of payment…. [and] can be adapted to the issues of the day to motivate particular kinds of behavior” (p. 45). We further recommend Company X create a compensation committee to ensure “fair and equal bonus shares to professionals across the organization” (Galbraith, 2014, p. 49). To ensure transparency within the organization, Galbraith (2014) advocates the public posting of bonus allocation decisions. To further support transparency within the organization, both the union and non-union agreements should also be made available to all employees.

Finally, we recommend Company X create and utilizes an employee recognition system, such as an employee of the month program, awarded days-off, or gift cards because recognition programs “identify and reward outstanding performance” amongst employees (Galbraith, 2014, p. 51).

Our recommended combination of an employee engagement survey, review of each non-union position description, a thorough salary market research and total compensation analysis, and the implementation and utilization of a compensation committee and employee recognition system, will support improving the morale and retention of non-unionized employees.


Since its establishment in 2008, Company X has grown from 10 to 285 employees. As Company X is still in their growth lifecycle stage, their brand is relatively unknown within Canada. As the company’s vision is to become a global industry leader by 2020, brand awareness in North America must be addressed in order to meet strategic outcomes.  As a result, BT1 is presenting the following steps for Company X’s consideration.

Lepsinger (2010) emphasizes the importance of understanding an organization’s current strategic state and its vision for the future. By understanding Company X opportunities and threats, we can determine and “analyze the industry’s attractiveness and its potential for growth and profitability” (Lepsinger, 2010, p. 27). We recommend an initial step of reviewing the strategic planning process to assess the effectiveness of identifying gaps or barriers in achieving their vision.  Currently, Company X does not have a marketing team or a strategy to address brand recognition.

As Company X has the opportunity to differentiate their customers’ service experience by utilizing their skilled resources, they have an opportunity to grow and prove their brand within Canada. We recommend to first focus their marketing efforts on inbound marketing, which is the engagement level of current customers. Increased engagement within this sphere will begin a cascading effect on the level of brand awareness within the whole industry. Company X collects customer feedback by distributing a quarterly survey and has a LinkedIn page comprising of Company X’s history and organizational updates.  These platforms are a source of information and a potential communication tool to improve recognition.

When we leverage the power of customer experience analytics, we can then understand all of the intersections and entry points we have with our customers – which is our digital footprint. The digital footprint connects all sources of customer data interactions that tell a story of that individual or Company X overall. For marketing, this type of information allows for increased targeting and segmentation, analyzing trends and evaluating the performance site or asset. (Sweetwood, 2006, p. 68)

BT1 recommends Company X build customer engagement as a method to promote their Canadian brand and have suggested two preliminary strategies.

Branding through Designing a Storytelling Strategy

“A brand story is not always about showcasing a history or timeline of your company. It can be both a mission statement and an engaging story at the same time” (Baldkhi, 2018).

As Company X is part of a global organization with an influential and respected brand outside of North America, BT1 recommends capitalizing on the impact and effectiveness of their company worldwide and linking it to potential benefits for Canadian customers.  For example, how are the global and domestic communities positively affected?  Have their services made a difference in their customers’ lives and if so, how has Company X provided increased value for them? Company X would be wise to focus their marketing efforts on the positive societal impact their company can and continues to have in the world.  Using customer success stories will open doors to marketing through industry relationships and partnerships. This principle is garnered from Kotler, Kartajaya, and Setiawanl (2007) when they suggest “customers turn to trustworthy sources of advice: their social circle of friends and family” (p. 59).

BT1 recommends using storytelling to communicate their successes and to create visible and global awareness to their Canadian customer groups. Baldkhi (2018) supports brand-driven storytelling as it is “a powerful approach that can increase your authority and brand awareness at the same time” (para 05). To promote the effectiveness of storytelling, Patel (2013) reveals “telling your story is a critical part of building your brand. It helps to shape how people view you and enables consumers to begin forging a connection with you and your company”.  By maximizing social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin; Company X can implement a storytelling strategy that shares authentic customer stories which will create exposure and awareness of the brand, increase customer engagement, and foster a competitive advantage for Company X.

We recommend Company X consider formulating their story with this simple structure identified by Reese (2014) used to craft brilliant movies:

  1. Identity – Who you were when you started your journey?
  2. Turn Against the Status Quo – What did you want to change about your prior identity/world?
  3. Struggle – What did you struggle against as you started to create change?
  4. Insight – What unique tool or insight did you gain that made overcoming this challenge easier?
  5. Resolution – Who are you today and who do you serve?

Creating a Community and Selling Connection to Brand their Story

Today in the era of connectivity, customers now actively connect with one another, building ask-and-advocate relationships.  We recommend Company X should seek to leverage the influence of their customers within their marketing strategy. When a company recognizes that “others’ influence is the most important, [then] marketers should rely on community marketing activities” (Kotler et al., p. 69).  A prime example of leveraging the influence of others is Airbnb. Research reveals Airbnb “is 100% about the customer and instead of telling the company’s story, it gets its customers to tell their stories” (Patel, 2013). In an ingenious method of communicating possible experiences of customers, Airbnb allows their hosts to share what can be expected during a stay with them, thereby positioning the customer at the center of the brand (Patel, 2013).  Company X would do well to follow Airbnb’s example of using storytelling to create connections between customers and their brand. By encompassing Company X’s branding strategy within a storyline focused on positive change and value added, it will draw in potential customers.


BT1 has identified five recommended changes for Company X to implement; develop trust and collaboration within the SLT, establish an internal culture, development of staff, address non-union workforce morale, and increase brand awareness. With any change, there is always implementation considerations, as each recommendation will require an investment of finances, time, and organizational capital. BT1 feels it is imperative that the SLT take the necessary time to evaluate these recommendations as potential strategic drivers required to move forward towards their vision.  Understanding the vision of the international organization to be a global industry leader within just a few short years, it is evident Company X has several bottlenecks which are preventing the necessary growth. While through the SWOT analysis, some of these are identified as external threats, internally the current organizational structure and constraints around financial resources are limiting development in critical areas, needs to be addressed. A “Slim-Down” strategy for Company X should strongly be considered in order to free up necessary resources to move forward (Lepsinger, 2010, p. 32).  If Company X does not have the funds to support the implementation of all our recommendations, then we suggest hiring a third party company to help find the funds necessary, either through budget cuts, a restructuring of the organization or increased revenues.

Notably, there is a current cultural value that will greatly work in their favour as evident from the SWOT analysis.  As with most startups, Company X has been in a continuous season of change, and as a result, the employees are change-minded; handling change exceptionally well, making quick decisions easier to implement.  While not all of the change may have been strategically important, it has well prepared the organization to manage this strategy execution gap well (Lepsinger, 2010, p. 133).

Regarding the Coopetetive Workshop, we understand there might be a cost barrier to overcome in hiring an outside consultant to come onsite to facilitate the workshop. We see the potential for failure if the entire SLT has not agreed to engage in the workshop upfront and the follow-on efforts wholeheartedly. Trust and cooperation must be authentic at this level of leadership and modelled as a value and standard of behaviour for the rest of the organization. The SLT must develop customized approaches to manage and not avoid the conflict that can arise due to personal differences, a process which could benefit from an external coach (Chiu, Owens, & Tesluk, 2016). This is a critical area to address and we believe there is a high chance of success if the whole SLT is in agreement.  The benefits will be far reaching, directly impacting the success of the other recommendations.

With a renewed commitment to establishing trust and cooperation, the SLT will be in a stronger position to critically assess the effectiveness organizational structure (Lepsinger, 2010). While the SLT will continue to maintain responsibility and authority for operational decisions as required, BT1 believes there will be very little difficulty in expanding current efforts to establish collaborative opportunities within the existing hierarchy. The measure of success will be determined by the ability of the SLT to correctly assess the strategic state of the organization (Lepsinger, 2010, p. 28).  If the BT1 assessment is correct, growth has stalled and the business is overextended with very few adequate returns (p. 31). This will require difficult conversations and decisions to be made.

If the above is done well and Company X is able to increase financial resources and open up the organizational structure in a few key strategic places, there is a high chance of success in implementing our recommendations around staff development, morale and retention of non-union staff, as well as proper resourcing of marketing efforts.  While Company X self-identified as above average on all of Lepsinger’s (2010) Bridge Builders, BT1 humbly suggests there seems to be some gaps between the desired vision outcome and current strategic decisions, and perhaps a reframing of perspectives will allow new clarity of these gaps to become evident.


Baird, L., Holland, P., & Deacon, S. (1999). Learning from action: Imbedding more learning into the performance process fast enough to make a difference. Organizational Dynamics, 27(4), 19–31.

Balkhi, S. (2018, May 4). Why the best storytellers achieve the most brand awareness. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/312273

Brennan, M. (2015, February 13). Five ways to build diverse, inclusive leadership teams. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/five_ways_to_build_diverse_inclusive_leadership_teams

Chiu, C., Owens, B. P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1705–1720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000159

DeRosa, D. (2018, August 7). Leadership development blog. Retrieved from https://www.onpointconsultingllc.com/blog/5-tips-for-healthy-conflict-resolution-in-the-workplace

Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ghobadi, S., D’Ambra, J. Coopetitive knowledge sharing: An analytical review of literature. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 307–317.

Hughes, R., Beatty, K., & Dinwoodie, D. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success (2nd ed.) San  Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2017) Marketing 4.0: Moving from traditional to digital. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap: How great leaders and their companies get results. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, J.(n.d.). Training and performance. Retrieved from: https://www.insperity.com/blog/5-steps-to-creating-employee-development-plans-that-truly-work/

Patel, S. (2017, October 13). 7 companies that are killing it with brand-driven storytelling. Retrieved from https://sujanpatel.com/marketing/7-companies-killing-brand-driven-storytelling/

Reese, N. (2014, March 26). Storytelling for business: How to craft a story that sells. Retrieved from http://www.nicholasreese.com/persuasive-storytelling/

Shafer, K., (2012, October 5). Andy Stanley on 3 keys to creating high-performance teams. Retrieved from https://churchrelevance.com/andy-stanley-on-creating-high-performance-teams/

Singh, G. (n.d.) Fostering collaboration and teamwork at the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fostering-collaboration-teamwork-Workplace-gurinder-singh

Stanley, A.(2018, November 1). Creating high-performance teams [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from https://andystanley.com/podcasts/

Sweetwood, A. (2016). The analytical marketer: How to transform your marketing organization. Boston, MA:  Harvard Business Review Press

University, E. N. (n.d.). Kotter’s 8 – step change model. Retrieved from https://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/hr/workingattheUniversity/LandD/organisational-change/support/building-your-resilience/Pages/Kotter’s-8-Step-Change-Model.aspx