Essay: Dov Frohman’s decisions regarding Intel Israel during the missile attacks

Dov Frohman experienced one of the hardest decision of his life as the general manager of Intel Israel. During a hostile time in Israel’s history he had to choose between shutting down the company or keeping the plant open while facing an imminent risk of having direct missile attacks over the territory. The weaponry menace was not the only concern Dov had to take into account when taking his decision; the missiles were thought to be equipped with chemical warheads. The government had also issued a temporarily close due to the existing military operation.
The uncertainty of the situation played a big role in Frohman’s decision, not knowing the specificities of the operation and geographical details made the general manager of Intel Israel not feel very certain about his decision. He had to brainstorm on the two options on the table: one was closing the company’s operations and the other one risking the employees’ lives while keeping the operations running. Frohman was worried because he knew that even a short lapsed interruption would detriment any future possibilities of having future investments in Intel Israel. Not only that but also the fact that this high tech sector company was a vital piece of Israel’s economy. The trust of other multinationals would be lost and the stability of the businesses in Israel crumbled. Ultimately, the safety of the Intel’s employees was the biggest concern of Frohman; this was, undoubtedly, the greatest risk of all.
At the end Frohman decided to keep the operations running and presented the decision to the employees. He asked them to come to work and clearly let them know that no punishment or coercive action would be mandated to any employee for not showing up to work. The days after the communication was delivered there were attacks all over Tel Aviv and Haifa, growing a scary sense of danger and insecurity among all the employees at Intel. The general manger at Intel Israel has still another difficult decision to make: was it still a safe idea to stick with his original plan or close the plant and tell employees to stay home? He then had to meet with the members of his management team and quickly decide on the next steps to take. Exposure of being The decision did not change, the company remained open and surprisingly, 75 percent of the workforce scheduled for the morning shift arrived. The attacks continued and although the conditions remained the same for several days, the employees kept showing up to work.
The situation was explained to the executives at Intel’s headquarters, Frohman informed them that they were not forcing any employee who did not feel safe to stay and work. He also pointed out the fact that although this communication was given to the employees a day before the attached started, the turnout was very good. The executives had to trust our decisions and understand that under these circumstances, the choice of remaining open was clearly risky but at the same time right. The missile attacks continued for over six weeks and the operations at Intel Israel kept up and running the entire time. This not only meant that Frohman’s decision was the correct one but also that his judgement and care about the workforce of the company was very crucial for him.
This decision also led Intel to invest and build new plants in Israel, the tough decision paid its dividends at the end of the way and helped the Israel’s market and businesses to grow even more. Investments such as the one of 3.5 billion in 2015 for the buildup of a new fab plan in Israel meant the largest one ever made by any company on that country. Today the company is the largest foreign-owned employer in Israel. It is then clear that good decisions can translate into great benefits later in time. Creating a good background and having the support of your management and employees is one of the main basics for a company’s success.
I agree with Dov Frohman’s decision to keep Intel Israel up and running before and while the missile attacks took place. His decision was an example of a non-programmed decision and at the end came out to be an acceptable one for him and his employees. Halting the operations would have decreased Intel’s reputation, which would later be translated into lesser investments and development of Israel’s businesses. Continuing production on the other hand would have brought the danger of death or injury because of the attacks.
The benefits of remaining open before the first attack were more than the clear and potential damage that the attacks would cause. It would have also been not right and against the ethical rules to order the employees to keep working while the attacks were taking place. Frohman’s decision was again the correct one, allowing the workers to choose between coming to work or staying at homes sheltering from the attacks was a strong proof of Frohman’s managerial intelligence and ethics. This decision was smart because he also lifted all liabilities from the management team, letting the employees choose by themselves regarding their future. The increased possible costs during the attacks gave Frohman another opportunity to back off from his last decision and close the company. Still he remained steady on his decision and his belief really paid off when, in average, more than 75 percent of the company’s workforce showed up to work.
I agree on Frohman making the decisions in this time of crisis. Intel’s executives would have overseen various risk factors in the situation wile Frohman was the decision maker at the moment and proved himself fully prepared to take this responsibility. It is valuable to say that Frohman did not order the employees to stay or halted the production but let their employees assume the responsibility themselves. I also believe that these types of situations should have been forecasted; Israel is a country amid political conflicts and knowing beforehand what to do in situations like this would have come in handy for Frohman. Nonetheless I have to say that Intel’s executives showed their trust and confidence in Frohman’s job by not interfering and allowing him to handle the situation. I am certain that if the headquarters believed Frohman was not doing the right thing, they would have not accepted his answers or decision at first however, I believe executives should have not made the last decision.
I would have certainly considered more factors not taken into account by Frohman. I would have thought about the commute times for instance as this is the time most workers would have been facing the greatest risk. The location of the plant and the possibility of a safe escape in the event of an attack were factors of vital importance. Having a quick and small meeting with my management team and some key employees would have led me to the agreed solution without having to take any extra risk. I would have closed the business to be honest, there is only one life to live and mine would have been also in jeopardy while staying working in the company.