Dov Fohman Case After The Actual Missile Attack

1. Do you agree with Dov Frohman’s decision in advance of the actual missile attacks to keep Intel up and running? What about after the actual missile attacks began? Considering the facts from the crisis, Frohman’s judgment to remain open is an acceptable response. On the other hand a complete shutdown of operations approach would have eliminated the risk of losing life at facilities. Additionally executives at Intel headquarters would have supported the decision of halting operations. This decision would have left a sour taste in the mouths of Intel headquarter executives caused decreased confidence in the branch to produce. Additionally the shortage in the market would have created opportunity for other branches to prosper giving Intel headquarters alternatives for future investments. The situation Frohman and his team experienced is a textbook example of non-programmed decision. The benefits of remaining open were clearly fruitful for the branch and Intel headquarters clearly saw the commitment and well handling of the crisis. The method adopted by Frohman deserves applause, by empowering employees to determine whether it is safe to come work. This decision also lifts much of the responsibility of Intel Israel, as the employees knew there are no consequences of missing …show more content…
In the first stages of the incident a complete shutdown of at least a couple days was necessary to assess the matter. Although the first threat of missiles did not carry chemical weapons it could have easily accelerated, placing all staff members into a direct threat. In wake of the missile attack Frohman falls into escalated commitment to his decision. A good leader must always weigh the pros and cons of a decision therefore thirty minutes to make such a decisive action remains unparalleled to his first thought