Connect with us

Leadership Conversations

With the acquisition of Miphone is Carlos Slim’s America Movil (AMX) going after Denis O’Brien’s Digicel – in a classical case of Global Gamesmanship?

Published

on

America Movil, the biggest cell phone operator in Latin America, announced it was in a deal to buy Jamaican cell phone company Oceanic Digital (Miphone). The billion dollar question now is why would a company with over 137 million subscribers in 16 countries buy a company with just over 200,000 subscribers and very little prospects of taking market leadership away from Digicel or for that matter Cable and Wireless?

America Movil, AMX is the leading provider of wireless mobile services in Latin America and operates in 16 countries in the Americas. As of June 30, 2007, it had 137.2 million wireless subscribers and 3.8 million fixed wire lines and is owned by one of the world’s richest men, Carlos Slim. Oceanic, which also operates in El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, is reported to have slightly more than 200,000 customers in Jamaica.

According to the company website Oceanic Digital Jamaica Limited (ODJ) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oceanic Digital Communications (ODC) which is a New York based telecommunications company. ODJ uses the MiPhone brand name as their public trading name and in all customer and media communications.

The Company’s trading name is MiPhone. The corporate motto is “Saves You Money Everyday”, which speaks directly to MiPhone’s commitment to providing the best mobile telecommunications products and services at the lowest cost to suit the people of Jamaica’s personal and business needs.

AMX, hoping to conclude the deal in the fourth quarter of this year, providing Jamaican regulators approved it did not say how much it would pay for the company although figures of US$75M have been quoted in local media reports.

Carlos Slim is however facing stiff and growing competition in his home market. America Movil according to international media reports is in a battle with Spain’s Telefonica for dominance of Latin America’s cellular phone markets, one of the world’s fastest growing. This is also a market that Denis O’Brien, founder and owner of Digicel has been eyeing and recently moved into with the recent acquisition of Digicel Holdings Limited in 2006 with operations in El Salvador and Guatemala.

It’s interesting to note that Digicel Holding Limited (DHL) actually existed long before Denis O’Brien decided to set up and name his company Digicel and begin operations in the Caribbean. It is said that this was pointed out to him only after the company and brand name was developed and registered. There are conspirator theorists who believe that he was aware of the existence of the company and brand name and were eyeing it for acquisition and a point of entry into this market. The truth of this will probably never be known, but you have to admit that it makes for interesting reading.

Digicel Holdings Limited (DHL) operates a GSM mobile business in El Salvador and also has a mobile license in Guatemala and currently employees 160 people through its Salvadoran subsidiary.

The acquisition of DHL announced O’Brien into the Central American mobile market expanding Digicel existing Pan Caribbean GSM network, and increasing its coverage to a population of more than 22 million people. Digicel has made over US$ 1.2 billion in investments in the region so far.

El Salvador has one of the most open telecommunications markets in Central America following the privatisation and liberalisation of the sector in 1998. Mobile penetration is currently over 42% and the sector continues to enjoy growth, with mobile subscribers overtaking fixed lines in 2002.

Digicel, which currently has a subscriber base of more than four million users and operations in 22 countries, has made no secret of its plans to extend its performance in the Caribbean to Central and Latin America. And so with an investment of more than 150 million US dollars in a modern GSM network and with coverage of nearly 100% of the national territory, Digicel – armed with a new slogan “FIRST YOU ARE”, entered the Central and Latin America market appearing like a company totally renewed, with a strong emphasis on service. This apparently got Carlos Slims attention.

In the area telecommunications, Digicel brought to the El Salvadorian market the latest technology available to improve the coverage substantially. “We are installing GSM GPRS/EDGE equiptment, that will allow us to offer new and innovative services and, mainly, an efficient network of cover. The advantages of this technology are: quality of the signal, better reception, access to Internet and access to services multimedia, among others”, announced the Digicel Salvadorian company President

Global Gamesmanship in action

Carlos Slim is not taking Denis actions lightly and has decided to enter Digicel prized home ground in an apparent counter move.

Only five years after Oceanic Digital bought out Centennial Communications’ stake, which gave it full control of the local mobile company, the New York-based telecommunications firm finalised a deal to sell the telecom to Carlos Silm’s America Movil (AMX). The sale makes it the second time shares in the Miphone operation has changed hands, since it started operations in 2001.

In an attempt to secure an answer to the billion dollar question “why would a company with over 137 million subscribers in 16 countries buy a company with just over 200,000 subscribers? Businessuite spoke to Aldo, President of AMK Communications and a Brand Strategist to get a perspective on the possible branding implications. This was his take on the matter.

“Firstly we have to understand that AMX has over 137 million subscribers compared to Digicel 4M of which 1.8 is in Jamaica. Miphone has about 200,000.Essentially MiPhone is really a non-issue for AMX, so you really have to ask yourself why they would purchase the company. What strategic benefit would MiPhone have to AMX?

Secondly AMX uses the GSM platform in Latin America and I therefore expect them adopt one of two strategies – either drop the CDMA platform and convert to GSM along with Cable and Wireless and of course Digicel. So from a technology, product service delivery all three will be on the same level. This will shift the competitive platform to price and service delivery. OR retain the existing CDMA platform and continue with the existing service delivery.

Now depending on which strategy they adopt, branding will now come into play. I would hazard a guess that AMX will either change the branding from Miphone to the AMX brand used in Latin America allowing for a seem less branding platform across the western Hemisphere OR retain MiPhone as a fighter brand in Jamaica. Both these options of course have their own strategic implications. Based on my reading of the possible game plan the fighter brand strategy is the more likely move.

Thirdly and this is where it all comes together in what I believe is the strategic master plan. Jamaica is Digicel main market with 1.8 million subscribers out of 4 million and for which it will and must defend at all costs.

Latin America one of the world’s fastest growing markets is a major market block for AMX, which is already in a battle for market share with Spain’s Telefonica for dominance of Latin America’s cellular phone markets.

I believe that Carlos and AMX seeing what Denis and Digicel has done to Cable and Wireless in the Caribbean recognises that he cannot afford to battle Digicel in the Latin American market along with Telefonica, so what does he do, he goes into Digicel main market and shifts the battle field from Latin America to Jamaica and the Caribbean. He then says to Denis where are you going to put your resources and fight now, in your home market or in an expansion market?

“AMX with immense resources and market dominance in Latin America can afford to compete at a loss in the Caribbean by driving prices down and forcing Digicel to compete like it has never done before.”

AMX with the acquisition of MiPhone forces Digicel to redeploy resources from Latin America to Jamaica and the Caribbean to defend market share. AMX with immense resources and market dominance in Latin America can afford to compete at a loss in the Caribbean by driving prices down and forcing Digicel to compete like it has never done before. This may be a major challenge for Digicel as from my understanding they have never sought to compete on price, they may have to rethink this strategy. AMX will strategically and deliberately loose money in the Caribbean, as it’s much cheaper than losing and recovering market share in Latin America. This hopefully for Carlos will keep Digicel busy for many years to come.

That is the strategic and principle benefit of the MiPhone purchase, to keep Digicel busy and focused in the Caribbean and away from the Central and South America market”

But how does this grand battle plan reconcile with the recent press announcement from Craig McBurnett, CEO of Oceanic Digital Jamaica Limited. McBurnett is reported to have said “ We believe the purchase of the company by American Movil will enable MiPhone to continue as the leader in innovative telecommunication services on the island and to move forward with its strategy to provide the most technologically advanced array of telecommunications services and products to our customers,” We again posed this question to Brand Strategist, Aldo.

“Firstly you would not expect Craig to say anything else, what I have just outlined from the limited information I have is essentiality the first phase of the AMX grand master plan to take on Digicel and Cable and Wireless in the Caribbean, you don’t announce this to the competitor. If you look at the statement you will see that the reference to “innovative telecommunication services” and “the most technologically advanced array of telecommunications services and products” on the current CDMA platform is not in line with aggressive deployment of GSM used by AMX. So for me, from a strategic brand and market perspective I don’t buy that as the reason for the acquisition unless the fighter brand strategy is to be executed. You know the more I think about it the more I’m convinced that this is the plan.”

If the above scenario does play out then we should see a major shift in the telecommunication landscape in the Caribbean. One thing is very clear however; the introduction of aggressive competition from Digicel into the Caribbean against Cable and Wireless brought with it a windfall of benefits to consumers on numerous fronts. It would seem that with AMX now entering the market consumers should look forward to another round of benefits.

Next week how does Cable and Wireless fit into this and how will the introduction of new CEO Phillip Green change things?

What is Strategic Interdependence?

Authors, Ian C. MacMillan, Alexander B. Van Putten and Rita Gunther McGrath in their book Global Gamesmanship indicates that competition among multinationals these days is likely to be a three-dimensional game of global chess: The moves an organization makes in one market are designed to achieve goals in another in ways that aren’t immediately apparent to its rivals. The authors–all management professors–call this approach “competing under strategic interdependence,” or CSI. And where this interdependence exists, the complexity of the situation can quickly overwhelm ordinary analysis. Indeed, most business strategists are terrible at anticipating the consequences of interdependent choices, and they’re even worse at using interdependency to their advantage.

In their book, the authors offer a process for mapping the competitive landscape and anticipating how your company’s moves in one market can influence its competitive interactions in others. They outline the six types of CSI campaigns–onslaughts, contests, guerrilla campaigns, feints, gambits, and harvesting–available to any multi-product or multi-market corporation that wants to compete skillfully.

Using data they collected from their studies of consumer-products companies Procter & Gamble and Unilever, the authors describe how to create CSI tables and bubble charts that present a graphical look at the competitive landscape and that may uncover previously hidden opportunities. Smaller organizations that compete with a portfolio of products in just one national or regional market may find the CSI mapping process just as useful for planning their next business moves.

Source – Forbes Magazine, internet and published company information

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Business Insights

Businessuite Cover Story: Too Much Power? Governance Risks Rise as Tyrone Wilson Consolidates Leadership at Kintyre and Visual Vibe

Introducing a non-executive Chair, appointing dedicated executives for strategic verticals, and strengthening board committees are proven routes to balancing entrepreneurial dynamism with fiduciary responsibility.

Published

on

• Mr. Tyrone Wilson, who currently serves as Chairman, President & CEO of Kintyre Holdings (JA) Limited, and Chairman of Visual Vibe, has formally assumed the additional role of Chief Executive Officer of Visual Vibe, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. 
• Ms. Jasmin Aslan has been appointed as Chief Business Officer (CBO) of Kintyre Holdings (JA) Limited, effective July 1, 2025.
• Mr. Andrew Wildish has resigned from his role as Chief Investment Officer of Kintyre Holdings (JA) Limited, effective June 30, 2025. The Company’s investment strategy will now be assumed by Chairman, President & CEO Tyrone Wilson, and will be supported by the Investment Committee of the Board, chaired by Mr. Nick Rowles-Davies.

When Mr. Tyrone Wilson, Chairman, President, and CEO of Kintyre Holdings (JA) Limited, stepped into the additional role of Chief Executive Officer at Visual Vibe—alongside his existing portfolio—industry observers took note. His move, following the resignation of Chief Investment Officer Andrew Wildish, now consolidates strategic, operational, and governance control under one leader across the two connected companies.

While some argue that this concentration of power streamlines decision-making, particularly in smaller or fast-moving firms, global governance standards paint a starkly different picture.

From the UK’s Cadbury Code to the OECD and US Dodd-Frank regulations, best practice guidelines consistently recommend separating the roles of Board Chair and CEO. The rationale is simple: independent oversight safeguards shareholders by ensuring that strategic decisions, executive compensation, and performance evaluations are objectively scrutinized. Harvard Law’s corporate governance research found that dual-role companies often pay more to their top executives and face elevated ESG and accounting risks, with lower long-term returns to shareholders.

In Mr. Wilson’s case, the risks are amplified by his assumption of the departed CIO’s investment strategy responsibilities. While an Investment Committee chaired by Mr. Nick Rowles-Davies will provide support, the absence of a dedicated CIO raises questions about execution bandwidth, focus, and strategic continuity.

His move, following the resignation of Chief Investment Officer Andrew Wildish, now consolidates strategic, operational, and governance control under one leader across the two connected companies.

Recent global examples demonstrate the potential fallout:

At Boeing, CEO Dennis Muilenburg’s dual role contributed to oversight failures during the 737 MAX crisis.

Starbucks faced shareholder pressure to separate Chair and CEO roles held by Kevin Johnson and later Laxman Narasimhan.

At Volkswagen, Oliver Blume’s simultaneous leadership of VW Group and Porsche raised warnings of strategic drift and governance conflict.

For shareholders, these scenarios underline a core truth: Checks and balances matter. Without an independent Chair to challenge decisions, or a standalone CEO focused solely on operational delivery, companies risk poor accountability, strategic blind spots, and diminished investor confidence.

Furthermore, frequent senior departures, as seen with Wildish’s exit, create instability, potentially eroding morale, institutional knowledge, and external credibility. For companies like Kintyre and Visual Vibe, operating in competitive markets requiring agile yet well-governed leadership, the tension between efficiency and accountability has never been more stark.

The path forward? Independent governance experts recommend immediate board-level evaluation of leadership structures to ensure robust oversight. Introducing a non-executive Chair, appointing dedicated executives for strategic verticals, and strengthening board committees are proven routes to balancing entrepreneurial dynamism with fiduciary responsibility.

At the heart of it all lies a question shareholders must ask: When one person wears too many hats, who holds them accountable?

Foot Notes

Governance Best Practices: CEO & Chair Separation

Independence & Oversight
– Combining CEO and Chair roles concentrates power in one person, weakening board oversight and independent challenge
– Governance codes worldwide (UK Cadbury, OECD, Dodd-Frank, etc.) recommend separate roles to avoid conflicts of interest and boost board independence

Costs & Performance
– Studies show companies with dual roles tend to pay more to the leader, exhibit higher ESG and accounting risks, and often deliver lower long‑term returns

Efficiency vs. Accountability
– Proponents argue unified leadership can streamline decision-making, especially in small, fast-moving or crisis settings
– Critics note that efficiency gains are outweighed by weakened accountability, less board challenge, and riskier executive decisions

Risks of Tyrone Wilson Holding Multiple Executive Roles

1. Conflict of Interest & Oversight Blind Spots
As CEO, President, and Board Chair of Kintyre, plus CEO of Visual Vibe, Mr. Wilson controls operational, strategic, and governance levers. This vertical integration drastically reduces independent oversight.

As BoardEvals points out, the Chair should be able to “challenge the CEO’s performance”—impossible when they’re the same person

2. Governance and Shareholder Accountability
– The Board’s duties include setting senior pay and evaluating leadership. With a unified Chair/CEO, Mr. Wilson effectively oversees his own compensation and reviews—undermining fiduciary trust
– Transparency risks arise if disclosures and rationale for dual roles aren’t clearly communicated to shareholders, as required under Dodd‑Frank §972 .

3. Execution Risk & Burnout
Fulfilling multiple demanding roles reduces bandwidth and focus. There’s evidence dual roles can dilute effectiveness and increase error risk .

4. Investor Confidence & Market Perception
– Majority of global investors favor role separation. Even large US firms are moving in that direction (44% of S&P 500 now combined vs. 57% a decade ago)

– Cases like VW (Blume), Starbucks (Niccol), Boeing (Muilenburg) show shareholders raising flags when executives take on both roles

Executive Departures & Instability
Andrew Wildish’s departure as CIO on June 30, replaced by Mr. Wilson & an Investment Committee, indicates a consolidation of high-level roles. Multiple senior exits can signal:

Leadership instability, undermining investor confidence and organizational clarity.

Strategic drift, especially in areas requiring specialized expertise.

Increased “agency” and “entrenchment” risk – where board oversight may be compromised by concentrated executive power .

Shareholder Considerations
Investors should be concerned when:

Checks and balances are diminished
With one executive occupying so many strategic and governance roles, board objectivity may be compromised.

Succession and crisis management are jeopardized
Who leads if Mr. Wilson is unavailable? What happens if rapid decisions are needed? Lack of emergency backup risks business continuity.

Specialized oversight is reduced
Investment strategy, compliance, audit—all risk oversight gaps when not handled by dedicated, independent executives.

External advisors step in
If retained, external governors may mitigate some risks—but at added cost and complexity.

Continue Reading

Entrepreneurship

Building a Business While Working a 9–5: The Real Hustle Behind the Dream

Published

on

Starting a new business is bold. Starting one while managing a full-time 9–5? That’s a different kind of brave.

For many aspiring entrepreneurs, the safety net of a full-time job provides stability while pursuing a passion project or startup dream. But make no mistake — it takes strategy, discipline, and an honest understanding of your limits.

Here’s what I’ve learned (and am still learning) as I straddle both worlds:

1. Time Becomes Your Most Valuable Currency
With only early mornings, lunch breaks, and late nights to spare, you begin to spend time like money. You’ll learn quickly that not every meeting is worth it, not every opportunity is aligned, and not every “yes” deserves your energy.

2. Boundaries Are Everything
Your job deserves your full attention during business hours. Your startup deserves its own sacred space. Without clear boundaries, burnout is inevitable and performance can suffer — in both areas.

3. You Don’t Have to Do It Alone
Whether it’s a co-founder, a freelance designer, or a virtual assistant, small investments in support can pay off big in time and sanity. And yes, your network is a secret weapon.

4. Progress Over Perfection
You won’t launch with the perfect website, the flawless pitch deck, or a viral brand — and that’s okay. The most important step is the next one. Small, consistent progress compounds.

5. Clarity Comes Through Action
You might start your business thinking it will go one way, only to find your true niche or product-market fit halfway down the road. That clarity won’t come from overthinking — it comes from doing.

Starting a business while working a full-time job isn’t about being superhuman — it’s about being deeply committed to a bigger vision while managing your current responsibilities with integrity.

To those in the thick of the hustle — keep going. You’re not alone, and you’re not crazy. You’re building something meaningful.
If you’re in this season too, I’d love to hear your story. What’s your business? What’s working? What’s not?

Let’s connect and support each other.

Rojah Thomas Co-Founder at Kree8 Hive!
Sales & marketing maven, passionate marketer with a love for sales. With over 8 years experience in the field, I offer a refreshing new age approach to marketing with a direct focus on sales and ROI.

Continue Reading

Business Insights

You Can’t Fix What You Can’t See: Why Jamaica Broilers’ U.S. Collapse Wasn’t Just Financial, It Was Strategic

Published

on

A supply chain leader’s take on how weak governance, poor integration, and reactive leadership cost Jamaica Broilers billions, and what Caribbean firms must do differently.

As a Jamaican-born supply chain executive working in the United States, I’ve seen firsthand how ambition without execution can quickly become a liability. That’s exactly what happened to Jamaica Broilers Group Limited. For nearly 70 years, JBG has been a symbol of Caribbean manufacturing excellence. However, in early 2025, the company announced its first quarterly loss in history, primarily driven by a $1.15 billion loss from its U.S. operations.

Recent news articles suggest that miscalculations in valuing inventory and biological assets contributed to financial losses. As a leader in operations, financial transformation, and supply chain audits, I can state:

This was not just a financial mistake. It was a strategic failure of systems, governance, and business leadership.

The Numbers Tell the Story

Based on regulatory filings and media reports from Our Today and the Jamaica Observer, here’s what went wrong:

  • JBG admitted to using “unsubstantiated accounting valuation methodologies” affecting inventories and biological assets
  • The company expects a material restatement of U.S. earnings
  • It recorded a J$1.15 billion quarterly loss, compared to a J$1.3 billion profit the year before
  • U.S. operating profit fell from J$2.98 billion to J$922 million over nine months
  • The entire U.S. leadership team was removed, including Stephen Levy, the CEO’s brother
  • External financial advisors were brought in, and reports were delayed twice before being released

This wasn’t an isolated oversight. It was a total breakdown in the systems that connect supply chain performance to financial truth.

Where the Strategy Failed

1. Operations and Finance Were Completely Disconnected

JBG’s misstatement of inventory and biological assets tells me one thing: Finance was not operating with real-time data from the supply chain. In an asset-heavy industry like poultry, valuation accuracy is directly tied to production yields, biological input tracking, and inventory turnover. If those systems are disconnected, your balance sheet is based on assumptions.

Insight: You can’t fix what you can’t see. Real-time inventory visibility is no longer optional, especially in a low-margin industry.

2. Governance Was Passive, Not Proactive

The issues in the U.S. operation were only uncovered during a quarterly review. This means that for months, the leadership based in Jamaica had no visibility into what was truly occurring. There were no warning signs, no escalation triggers, and no governance frameworks in place to identify these missteps earlier.

Insight: Foreign subsidiaries must be governed as extensions of the enterprise, not as independent silos. Operational governance is not a meeting, it is a system.

3. No Strategic Positioning in the U.S. Market

JBG tried to enter the U.S. poultry market as a mainstream player. No diaspora segmentation. No culturally driven SKUs. No unique value proposition. That meant they were competing directly with industry giants like Tyson Foods and Sanderson Farms, with no brand edge or pricing power.

Insight: In the U.S., don’t compete on commodity. Compete on culture, value, and customer alignment. JBG ignored the Caribbean diaspora, and with it, a major advantage.

4. Overexpansion Without Standardization

JBG operated two facilities in the United States, located in Iowa and South Carolina, without a unified operational model. The systems were not standardized, and the processes were not synchronized. The resulting consequences were significant.

  • Ballooning operating expenses
  • Fragmented performance metrics
  • Reduced supply chain efficiency

Insight: Expansion is not growth unless it is built on a repeatable model. Two facilities without one process is not scale, it is confusion.

What They Still Haven’t Fixed

Despite public admissions and leadership changes, JBG has not yet addressed:

  • Whether it will consolidate operations under a single facility
  • How will it implement diaspora-driven branding and product segmentation
  • What new controls are being put in place for real-time operational audits
  • How will its ERP or financial reporting systems be upgraded

The response remains focused on personnel. But this was never just a people problem. It was a process problem.

My Recommendations for Caribbean Firms Entering the U.S.

As someone who has optimized supply chains, here is what I recommend:

1. Integrate ERP Systems Across All Operational Units

Ensure that inventory data, production yields, and cost accounting are aligned and communicate effectively with one another daily.

2. Establish Governance With Clear Escalation Protocols

Don’t wait for quarterly reports. Build monthly audits, early-warning triggers, and local compliance reviews into your operations.

3. Build With Culture at the Center

Diaspora markets are not just nostalgic, they are loyal. Own that connection with specialized SKUs and targeted marketing.

4. Standardize Before You Scale

Replicate only what works. Make sure your first location operates with precision before opening a second.

5. Tell the Truth Sooner

Market trust is built on clarity. Communicate failures transparently, and show the systems being built to prevent recurrence.

I’m not writing this to criticize JBG. I share this because I’ve witnessed this narrative repeatedly. This was a billion-dollar lesson, highlighting the need for Caribbean businesses to prioritize operational discipline over mere optimism when expanding into the U.S.

Financial breakdowns start as operational blind spots. Visibility isn’t a luxury—it’s the foundation of trust.

Jermaine Robinson, MBA, CSCP
Strategic Supply Chain Leader | Global Logistics & Distribution Leader | Driving Operational Excellence & Digital Transformation

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of companies or clients for whom the author/s are currently working or have worked. Any content provided by the author/s is of their opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.

Continue Reading

Leadership Conversations

Why Some CEOs Resist the Concept of Buy-In

Published

on

In my years of working with CEOs during strategic planning, I’ve noticed a surprising resistance among some leaders to the concept of buy-in. To these CEOs, seeking input or engagement from employees feels like a sign of weakness. They believe leadership should be about mandating change and that buy-in dilutes their authority. This resistance, while common, often undermines the very success they aim to achieve through strategic planning.

The CEO’s Perspective on Buy-In
For many CEOs, strategic planning aims to create change—often significant, organization-wide change. They understand that change is difficult and frequently met with resistance, particularly from employees accustomed to the status quo. However, their response is often to mandate change, dismissing the need for employee involvement.

This approach stems from the belief that engaging employees in the planning process equates to surrendering control or being held hostage by their resistance. Confident in their vision, these CEOs view buy-in as an unnecessary hurdle, preferring to impose decisions with a “comply or leave” mentality.

The Case for Buy-In
My counterargument is simple yet profound: decisions are only effective if they are supported by those who must implement them. Dr. Robert Zawacki of the University of Colorado articulates this well in his book Transforming the Mature Information Technology Organisation. He argues:

Effective Decisions = The Right Decision X Commitment to the Decision (ED = RD x CD).

This formula highlights that even the best decisions will fail without the commitment of those responsible for implementing them. Commitment doesn’t arise from compulsion—it comes from understanding and shared ownership.

The Power of Participation
Engaging employees in the planning process fosters a deeper understanding and greater alignment. When employees are involved in crafting the parts of the plan that impact their work, they are more likely to accept and embrace the required changes. It aligns with the adage:

“If they create it, they understand it. If they understand it, they commit to it.”

Participation doesn’t mean ceding control; it means building a coalition of committed individuals who will champion the plan’s execution. Buy-in transforms resistance into ownership, turning a potential liability into an asset.

The Bottom Line
CEOs who dismiss buy-in as a weakness fail to see it as a tool of strategic strength. Leadership is not just about creating the right plan—it’s about ensuring that the plan succeeds. Engaging employees is not a concession; it’s a strategy for building commitment, aligning efforts, and achieving lasting change.

Buy-in isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s the multiplier that turns the right decisions into practical actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ronnie Sutherland
Managing Partner – Strategic Solutions Limited.I am a strategic planning facilitator ready to guide you through your next strategic planning process.”

Continue Reading

Businessuite News24

Finance Minister Highlights Middle Managers’ Key Role in Jamaica’s Economic Growth

“As Minister, I see every day how important strong leadership is to sustaining the progress we’ve made in stabilising our economy, attracting investment and opening new opportunities for our people,” Mrs. Williams said.

Published

on

Minister of Finance and the Public Service, Hon. Fayval Williams, has underscored the pivotal role middle managers play in driving Jamaica’s economic progress.

“As Minister, I see every day how important strong leadership is to sustaining the progress we’ve made in stabilising our economy, attracting investment and opening new opportunities for our people,” Mrs. Williams said.

She declared that middle managers are “the energy that gets things done” as they move their companies along, exhibiting true leadership that shapes the transformation of teams and influences the drive towards national development.

“[True leadership] is the consistent demonstration of values, authenticity and strategic focus that leaves behind a real legacy… one not written in résumés but in lives changed, organisations built, and futures secured. I know that you know that titles may grant authority, but only influence grounded in service, discipline and integrity builds the trust that moves countries like Jamaica ahead,” Mrs. Williams said.

Minister of Finance and the Public Service, Hon. Fayval Williams (second left), converses with (from left) Director, Montego Bay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Donovan Chen-See; Managing Director, Make Your Mark Consultants (MYMC), Dr. Jacqueline Coke-Lloyd; and Bishop Dwight Fletcher, during the MYMC two-day Middle Managers’ Leadership Conference at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel on Tuesday (April 29). Mrs. Williams delivered opening remarks.

She was addressing stakeholders on day one of the Make Your Mark Consultants (MYMC) two-day Middle Managers’ Leadership Conference at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel in New Kingston on Tuesday (April 29).

Mrs. Williams noted that strategic and decisive leadership is especially critical in navigating current global uncertainties.

“In today’s increasingly dynamic global trade environment, Jamaica’s agility or ability to move swiftly, decisively and strategically is essential for national success; and at the execution level, it is you, it is our middle managers who drive that success.

You’re the ones ensuring that vision becomes reality, solving problems, coaching teams, delivering results and adapting to change with confidence and clarity,” she contended.

The Minister further pointed out, “In a Jamaica that is growing steadily stronger with sound leadership, prudent economic management, historic low unemployment rates, a transparent inflation-targeting regime, real investments in education, infrastructure, and innovation, it is clear that, as a country, we are on the right path.”

Meanwhile, Mrs. Williams lauded MYMC for organising what she described as the premier management conference in Jamaica, noting that the event is critical as Jamaica navigates an increasingly complex global economy.

She noted that this year’s conference theme – ‘A Legacy of Change, Transformation and Execution’ – is apt for the occasion.

“It reminds us that leadership is not about titles, offices, or positions. It’s about action [and] the courage to move when others hesitate. It’s about vision… the ability to see beyond today’s challenges and into tomorrow’s possibilities. Most importantly, it’s about influence – the ability to inspire people to believe in a cause greater than themselves, to push past limits to build institutions that will stand the test of time,” the Minister emphasised.

Mrs. Williams encouraged the participating middle managers to take advantage of the conference by actively engaging in the discussions, learning from the experts, sharpening their skills and strengthening their networks so they can be better and stronger leaders, driving Jamaica’s continued growth and transformation.

By: Donique Weston, JIS

Continue Reading

Trending

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x