You are on page 1of 1

Lardizabal, Jeenika Joy M. Macasaet, Reagan M. Malba, Laarni R.



The Main argument of the case is on what decision to make. Would we, as consultants hired by the president himself, decide on to pursue on our findings and communicate the results of our engagement to suggest the removal of the president himself as the case may be, or to compromise and see other alternatives that would somehow avoid the removal of the president but still looking forward to a result that would improve the entire organization? The first alternative is really a dilemma considering the fact that the president himself hired us to act as consultants of the business. It is really rare and very surprising that our findings will tell us that significant matters affecting the organization is with regards to the performance of the president, that seems to be very unfavourable. That removal of such a high ranking position in the organization is necessary. On the other hand, compromising by looking at ways to improve such president may also be done. The only thing is that, if we make such a decision, our objectivity, unbiased approach, and integrity may somehow be diminished. For us consultants not to communicate the actual results and findings, seems to be an underestimation and manipulation of our very skills. But then, choosing this alternative lessens the effects to the president himself, because honestly speaking, a recommendation for removal of such a position would be conscientious on our side, though this is the right and straight way to do our job. We suggest that the practitioner properly report his findings, including the details / reasons for arriving into that conclusion. Based on the MAS Practice standards, one of the guidelines is understanding with the client, wherein the practitioner informs his client of all the significant matters related to the engagement. It includes not only the engagements objectives, scope, approach and fee, but it is also particular with informing the client of possible consequences of significant constraints, thus, it is assured that before the engagement had been fully agreed by the client and practitioner, important matters and possible outcomes had been clearly discussed. Considering this, it is easier for the practitioner to relay the result of the study and maintain objectiveness throughout the whole engagement. After relaying the conclusion with the president, the practitioner may enumerate some aspects that the president should improve to develop his governance and achieve the desired improvement in business efficiency. This is to assist the president and avoid his termination from his job. In case, after monitoring the presidents performance, the practitioner should discuss with the Board of Directors the results of his study.