Question Mark
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 22, 2002
Where did I come from? Why am I here? And where am I going? From childhood to our eventual
maturity and decline, these questions personify the human dilemma. It seems we spend the greater
part of our lives trying to find the answers to these questions: in truth, I have spent so much of my
life doing research and asking questions, that some call me the "Investigator” and a few of my line
names in the National Society of Pershing Rifles are "Batman" and “Question Mark?” And if
organizational growth resembles the lifecycle of a living organism-conception, birth, growth,
maturity, and decline-the same questions must apply. Where did the organization come from? Why
does the organization exist? And where is it going? Indeed, it was these questions that I could not
seem to reconcile as I sat in class reading the case study of “Managing Strategy at Caesars Tahoe.”
The Caesars Tahoe case study outlines a classic scenario of the parent company issuing escalating
financial goals to a subsidiary. Except, having skied Tahoe for several years, the scenario was
anything but a classic case study. One of my youthful aspirations was to live in California and ski
Tahoe: in 1997, it became a reality. The emotional, even spiritual, connection I made with the Tahoe
area left me unable to find an objective way to approach the case. Each time I looked at the case
factors, “…increasing emphasis on cash flow and sustained earnings improvement,” on “an operating
income of $11.4 million on $107.2 million in revenue for Caesars,” in a “situation [that] would be an
easier one to remedy if the tough regulatory environment would allow the company to expand its
facilities,” I was left incredulous (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 546-548). Is profit for the sake of
profit, regardless of the impact on the environment or the community good business strategy? Where
did Caesars’ ideology come from?
The case study clearly appeared to be written from the sole perspective of Caesars. Granted, I
appreciate the rationale of this approach; the case is about business. Yet, on further reflection the
case does not seem to provide equal representation of the relative views or context from which the
business student can adequately review and understand the case. Perhaps, this revelation is not
significant and is endemic of case studies in general. Nonetheless, from my perspective case studies
represent one of the main opportunities for students to exercise critical thinking skills and apply a
measure of “what would I do in real life?” application to the theories learned. To clarify, I am not in
opposition to businesses making profit. The ability to generate profit is one of the tenets I give relative
support as part of my version of free market capitalism: still, short-term profit at what long-term
costs?
The authors of the case study cite that “Attaway decided that the first things the executive committee
would need to tackle were the strategic challenges, including an understanding of the market drivers
and the specific elements facing Caesars Tahoe” (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 546). However, there
is no mention of the economic or environmental impact of Caesar’s growth strategies on the “year-
round population of thirty-five thousand…[where] the natural beauty is the main attraction…”(
Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 546). Nor does the statement appear to take into account the impact of
the tourism shortfall on the eighteen hundred full-time employees, which at an average wage of $6.00
per hour clearly lack a financial cushion. To the point, I have actually met a few of the transplant
“townies” that moved to Tahoe to ski and work the resorts, and some lived on ramen and fruit with
several roommates just to make survival possible.
The casino has the opportunity to continue to remain competitive, make a reasonable profit, serve as
a financial pillar for the larger community, and act as a proponent for environmental conservation. To
restate my earlier position, I am for profit; however, I am not for a large profitable business operating
as if it does not impact people and the environment. Ironically, this view is supported by Collins and
Porras (1997) who state that, “Visionary companies are premier institutions-the crown jewels-in their
industries, widely admired by their peers and having a long track record of making a significant
impact on the world around them” (p.1). In fairness to Collins and Porras, this may not be the type
of “impact” they were referring to, yet it underscores a central point: businesses do not operate in
isolation. Further, if the executive team aspires to create a profitable company that is “Built to Last,”
should this be accomplished without regard to the sustainability of the socio-economic infrastructure
and natural environment?
The case study experience also evoked a different effect, a quest for a deeper understanding of the
relative values of structure and culture in strategy development: the critical questions and dialogue in
Organizational Culture on February 16th was invaluable in clarifying the subtle yet critical relationship
between the elements. The direct personal experience of Tahoe provided critical context for
establishing a different perspective of the case, the Tahoe culture. My experience of Tahoe culture
and surrounding areas is that of respect for community, nature and rugged individualism. Yet,
according to the authors, “Local business was not cultivated and, as a result, the property had to
work hard at attracting local clientele” (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 547). Given Caesars position on
environmental regulation, the fit between Caesars’ and the community’s values, strategies and culture
is highly questionable. In effect, why was Caesars in Tahoe?
The relationship between structure, culture, and strategy, as stated above, implies a need for
alignment of the elements and the organization overall to achieve success in strategy implementation
and execution. As stated in the case, though nearly 50 percent of the employees have worked for
Caesars for more than five years, “This stable employee base is beneficial in some ways, but it tends
to create pockets of low morale and motivation” (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 551). Low morale
and high turnover do not point to the level of commitment from the workforce needed for success.
Nor does low morale signal a clear commitment by Caesars to more than short-term profit, or the
understanding that “the greatest creation is the company itself and what is stands for” (Collins and
Porras, 1997, p.23). In fact, Falvey and Attaway (1997) reported that there were “numerous changes
in strategic focus,” and “Any long-term focus was sacrificed for short-term gains” (p.546). Without
a long-term vision where was Caesars going?
The above statements, admittedly, are biased towards my own perception of what Tahoe “should
be,” and reflect my earlier admission that I found myself unable to be completely objective in
analyzing the case. Interestingly, it took time for me to discern that my discomfort or cognitive
dissonance was actually due to the inequity in the way the case was framed: profit good,
environmental regulations bad. However, the discussions, and readings from Collins and Porras,
confirmed that Caesars does not have to “oppress themselves with what we call the ‘Tyranny of the
OR’-the rational view that cannot easily accept paradox…”(Collins and Porras, 1997, 43). According
to Collins and Porras, with much effort Caesars can be profitable AND environmentally conscience,
fiscally responsible AND pay a decent living wage to employees. And for my part, I was able to
investigate and better reconcile the complex issues presented in the case, and to ask more questions.
References
Barbara F., and David A., (1997) The Executive Committee Challenge
Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built To Last. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 22, 2002
Where did I come from? Why am I here? And where am I going? From childhood to our eventual
maturity and decline, these questions personify the human dilemma. It seems we spend the greater
part of our lives trying to find the answers to these questions: in truth, I have spent so much of my
life doing research and asking questions, that some call me the "Investigator” and a few of my line
names in the National Society of Pershing Rifles are "Batman" and “Question Mark?” And if
organizational growth resembles the lifecycle of a living organism-conception, birth, growth,
maturity, and decline-the same questions must apply. Where did the organization come from? Why
does the organization exist? And where is it going? Indeed, it was these questions that I could not
seem to reconcile as I sat in class reading the case study of “Managing Strategy at Caesars Tahoe.”
The Caesars Tahoe case study outlines a classic scenario of the parent company issuing escalating
financial goals to a subsidiary. Except, having skied Tahoe for several years, the scenario was
anything but a classic case study. One of my youthful aspirations was to live in California and ski
Tahoe: in 1997, it became a reality. The emotional, even spiritual, connection I made with the Tahoe
area left me unable to find an objective way to approach the case. Each time I looked at the case
factors, “…increasing emphasis on cash flow and sustained earnings improvement,” on “an operating
income of $11.4 million on $107.2 million in revenue for Caesars,” in a “situation [that] would be an
easier one to remedy if the tough regulatory environment would allow the company to expand its
facilities,” I was left incredulous (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 546-548). Is profit for the sake of
profit, regardless of the impact on the environment or the community good business strategy? Where
did Caesars’ ideology come from?
The case study clearly appeared to be written from the sole perspective of Caesars. Granted, I
appreciate the rationale of this approach; the case is about business. Yet, on further reflection the
case does not seem to provide equal representation of the relative views or context from which the
business student can adequately review and understand the case. Perhaps, this revelation is not
significant and is endemic of case studies in general. Nonetheless, from my perspective case studies
represent one of the main opportunities for students to exercise critical thinking skills and apply a
measure of “what would I do in real life?” application to the theories learned. To clarify, I am not in
opposition to businesses making profit. The ability to generate profit is one of the tenets I give relative
support as part of my version of free market capitalism: still, short-term profit at what long-term
costs?
The authors of the case study cite that “Attaway decided that the first things the executive committee
would need to tackle were the strategic challenges, including an understanding of the market drivers
and the specific elements facing Caesars Tahoe” (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 546). However, there
is no mention of the economic or environmental impact of Caesar’s growth strategies on the “year-
round population of thirty-five thousand…[where] the natural beauty is the main attraction…”(
Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 546). Nor does the statement appear to take into account the impact of
the tourism shortfall on the eighteen hundred full-time employees, which at an average wage of $6.00
per hour clearly lack a financial cushion. To the point, I have actually met a few of the transplant
“townies” that moved to Tahoe to ski and work the resorts, and some lived on ramen and fruit with
several roommates just to make survival possible.
The casino has the opportunity to continue to remain competitive, make a reasonable profit, serve as
a financial pillar for the larger community, and act as a proponent for environmental conservation. To
restate my earlier position, I am for profit; however, I am not for a large profitable business operating
as if it does not impact people and the environment. Ironically, this view is supported by Collins and
Porras (1997) who state that, “Visionary companies are premier institutions-the crown jewels-in their
industries, widely admired by their peers and having a long track record of making a significant
impact on the world around them” (p.1). In fairness to Collins and Porras, this may not be the type
of “impact” they were referring to, yet it underscores a central point: businesses do not operate in
isolation. Further, if the executive team aspires to create a profitable company that is “Built to Last,”
should this be accomplished without regard to the sustainability of the socio-economic infrastructure
and natural environment?
The case study experience also evoked a different effect, a quest for a deeper understanding of the
relative values of structure and culture in strategy development: the critical questions and dialogue in
Organizational Culture on February 16th was invaluable in clarifying the subtle yet critical relationship
between the elements. The direct personal experience of Tahoe provided critical context for
establishing a different perspective of the case, the Tahoe culture. My experience of Tahoe culture
and surrounding areas is that of respect for community, nature and rugged individualism. Yet,
according to the authors, “Local business was not cultivated and, as a result, the property had to
work hard at attracting local clientele” (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 547). Given Caesars position on
environmental regulation, the fit between Caesars’ and the community’s values, strategies and culture
is highly questionable. In effect, why was Caesars in Tahoe?
The relationship between structure, culture, and strategy, as stated above, implies a need for
alignment of the elements and the organization overall to achieve success in strategy implementation
and execution. As stated in the case, though nearly 50 percent of the employees have worked for
Caesars for more than five years, “This stable employee base is beneficial in some ways, but it tends
to create pockets of low morale and motivation” (Falvey and Attaway, 1997, p. 551). Low morale
and high turnover do not point to the level of commitment from the workforce needed for success.
Nor does low morale signal a clear commitment by Caesars to more than short-term profit, or the
understanding that “the greatest creation is the company itself and what is stands for” (Collins and
Porras, 1997, p.23). In fact, Falvey and Attaway (1997) reported that there were “numerous changes
in strategic focus,” and “Any long-term focus was sacrificed for short-term gains” (p.546). Without
a long-term vision where was Caesars going?
The above statements, admittedly, are biased towards my own perception of what Tahoe “should
be,” and reflect my earlier admission that I found myself unable to be completely objective in
analyzing the case. Interestingly, it took time for me to discern that my discomfort or cognitive
dissonance was actually due to the inequity in the way the case was framed: profit good,
environmental regulations bad. However, the discussions, and readings from Collins and Porras,
confirmed that Caesars does not have to “oppress themselves with what we call the ‘Tyranny of the
OR’-the rational view that cannot easily accept paradox…”(Collins and Porras, 1997, 43). According
to Collins and Porras, with much effort Caesars can be profitable AND environmentally conscience,
fiscally responsible AND pay a decent living wage to employees. And for my part, I was able to
investigate and better reconcile the complex issues presented in the case, and to ask more questions.
References
Barbara F., and David A., (1997) The Executive Committee Challenge
Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built To Last. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Leadership Development > Question Mark
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |