However, Wavell is in no hurry. When the fund-raising period was about to expire, the company received several invitations to bid, among which the reconstruction of Spanish national communication project and Egyptian overseas communication project were very attractive. Wavell's company is very advantageous and competitive in such projects. After careful study, Wavell sent two teams to join the bidding. Winning the bid is the benefit and survival of the company, which is consistent with the whole company. Unfortunately, the company failed to bid for these two projects. The main reason for the failure is that the production quantity and specifications of optical fiber matching the company's excellent technology can not meet the requirements. Enterprises willing to produce optical fiber according to the company's requirements put forward the condition that the company must win the bid before production. The company's bidders could not untie the knot and finally failed.
Wavell called the board of directors to examine the cause and effect of the bid failure. The directors can't help feeling sorry. Because the profit of any one of these projects will exceed half of the company's annual income. The loss of failure should not be underestimated. At the end of the meeting, a director suddenly made a proposal to extend the fundraising period of this merger and asked for an immediate vote. The voting result turned out to be unanimous, and even the people who were most opposed to the merger voted in favor. Of course, Wavell easily raised funds and bought Continental Fiber Company in time. Some directors who opposed the merger expressed deep remorse and apologized to Wavell. These people admit that opposing mergers and acquisitions has hurt the bidding and led to failure. The enlightenment of this case is that choosing the right decision-making opportunity can effectively reduce or convince opponents.
The opponent will not change his position because you win, but because of his own reflection on the problem. Wavell chose the right decision-making opportunity, which not only reduced the difficulty of decision-making, but also won the respect of his opponent. Therefore, half the success of decision-making is to choose the right time. Timing not only determines the effect of the decision, but also determines whether the decision can be implemented smoothly. In particular, it is important to remember that although there are many options for decision-making, the opportunities for implementation may be unique.
It can be seen that grasping the timing of decision-making can often achieve twice the result with half the effort.
1In July, 862, the North and the South of the United States went to war. President Lincoln called members of Congress and said he wanted to announce a decision that had just been made. The president loudly declared "emancipating serfs", that is, giving slaves in southern States personal freedom. As soon as the declaration was read out, the audience was silent. This was a big move at that time, and it was bound to cause an uproar in the whole United States, including the north.
Secretary of State W. seward suggested that confederate supporters had recently rearranged military operations, and President Lincoln's paper declaration might be misinterpreted as a desperate measure. Why not wait until the situation is clearer before implementing it? Lincoln accepted seward's suggestion and postponed the promulgation of the declaration until September. At this time, the battle of Antietam organized the attack of the southern army. In this case, the president's decision was more acceptable to American supporters.
It is not difficult to see that the more likely a decision is to be opposed, the more important it is to choose the right time to launch it.
On October 30th, 20041/kloc-0, Cao announced that China aviation oil (Singapore) co., ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Singapore company") had suffered a huge loss of $550 million in speculative futures, and applied to the Singapore court for judicial protection. Public opinion at home and abroad is in an uproar.
On February 18, 2005, Chen Jiulin, the former president of Singapore Company, the core figure of the incident, revealed how Cao missed decision-making opportunities again and again in an exclusive interview with Xinhua News Agency.
The first missed opportunity: At the beginning of the Singapore enterprise crisis, according to the comments of Standard & Poor's, a world-renowned risk assessment agency, if Singapore companies and their parent companies deal with some details in time, Singapore companies can get out of the predicament with only 50 million US dollars.
The second missed opportunity: China Aviation Oil Group began to understand the seriousness of the incident on October 3, 2004. At that time, the book loss was 80 million US dollars. If CAO decided to lighten its position at that time, the actual loss of the whole position might not exceed 1 100 million USD. However, most of Cao's leaders are on vacation.
The Third Missed Opportunity: On October 9th, 2004/KLOC-0, Singapore Company formally submitted a written urgent request to the Group. If the positions were lightened at that time, the actual loss should be1.800 million USD. However, it was not until 16 that Cao Cai called a joint meeting to conduct research.
The fourth missed opportunity: after the crisis, many large enterprises at home and abroad contacted China Aviation Oil Group many times and were willing to support Singapore companies to solve the option problem. Among them, BP put forward two plans to control the risk within $200 million, and conducted long-term liquidation and negotiation for Singapore companies. In 2004 1 1 month, at the end of the negotiations, BP convened a meeting of global directors in new york to examine and approve the cooperation agreement with CAO, requiring the group leaders to be on duty that night to make the final decision, and CAO also agreed to this proposal. But at 10 o'clock that night, when Chen Jiulin called a group leader on duty at the domestic headquarters for instructions, the leader said that it was up to the general manager of the group to decide. The general manager is studying at the party school, and his mobile phone is turned off. None of the members of the group crisis management team answered the phone. In this way, the last chance to gain benefits and reduce losses through negotiations has also been lost.
At present, the decision-making of enterprises in China is mostly a "single-line approval model": the person in charge-the head of the department-the vice president in charge-the president. On the other hand, a perfect and smooth crisis handling mechanism has not yet been established. These two reasons lead to inefficient decision-making, and panic, helplessness or passive waiting when encountering risks are common, which easily leads to too much time delay, thus delaying the decision-making opportunity.
There may be many opportunities for decision-making, but every time you lose an opportunity, it means paying more costs.