The following year, Sukanta discussed with Adil that unless they got into the ticket selling process, they might not be able to improve the ticket numbers. However, this would mean moving away from Zedius, and the transition could cause short-term pains since TrueColor would be entering into unchartered territory. Further, Sukanta added that TrueColor would achieve self-sufficiency over couple of years. Adil was concerned about the risk of taking over an activity that the organization was not competent at, but understood Sukanta’s point. In the interest of building long-term competencies, he authorized Sukanta to take it forward. Sukanta did not renew Zedius’s contract in the following year; instead, he recruited a skeletal team of three freshers from a premier business school as his support staff.

As the event approached, the team dedicated themselves to executing their plan. However, by the time the ticket sales window closed, they managed to sell only 40,000 tickets. This shift in strategy provoked considerable dissent within the company, challenging Sukanta's decision.

Disturbed by the situation, witnessing the internal turmoil, Adil must now navigate the company's immediate reaction.

Which of the following should now be Adil’s BEST course of action?

Option B is the correct answer because Sukanta's strategy, though unsuccessful in the short term, is aimed at building long-term self-sufficiency for TrueColor. Transitioning from reliance on an external agency like Zedius to managing ticket sales internally was always expected to involve short-term challenges, as acknowledged by both Sukanta and Adil during their discussions. The failure to meet the sales target in the first year does not necessarily indicate a flawed strategy, as Sukanta and his newly recruited team require more time to learn, gain experience, and refine their processes. By adopting a "wait and watch" approach, Adil would provide the team with the time and space needed to realize their potential and build long-term capabilities for TrueColor. Prematurely reversing the decision would waste the investments made in Sukanta’s plan and undermine the organization’s commitment to long-term goals.

Option A: This option is incorrect because it disregards the strategic shift Adil had previously approved, which aimed to reduce dependence on external agencies and build internal capabilities for ticket sales. While Zedius had helped achieve past sales targets, going back to them immediately would indicate a lack of faith in Sukanta’s strategy and render the effort of creating an in-house team meaningless. Moreover, abruptly reversing the decision would demoralize Sukanta’s team and weaken the organization's commitment to long-term growth. The initial underperformance of Sukanta’s team should be seen as part of the learning curve rather than a reason to abandon the new strategy entirely.

Option C: This option is not the best course of action because it not only undermines the commitment to Sukanta’s plan but also introduces unnecessary risk. Partnering with a media agency working for TrueColor’s main competitor may result in conflicts of interest, operational challenges, or confidentiality concerns. Additionally, this option would still involve reliance on an external agency, which goes against the company’s objective of becoming self-sufficient in ticket sales. This would further delay the development of internal capabilities and erode the progress made so far under Sukanta’s leadership.

Option D: This option is also incorrect because it completely reverses the strategic direction Adil had approved just a year ago. While the decision to switch from Zedius to an in-house ticket sales team has faced challenges, dismissing Sukanta’s team after one setback would be an overreaction. Such a drastic move would not only waste the effort and investment already made but also signal a lack of patience and willingness to endure short-term pain for long-term gain. The in-house team's failure to meet the target in their first year does not necessarily indicate that the strategy is doomed. Instead of dismissing Sukanta’s team, Adil should provide them with time to adapt and improve.

Option E: This option is incorrect because it creates a hostile work environment and does not address the root cause of the issue. While setting clear expectations for performance improvement is important, issuing threats will only demotivate Sukanta and his team, who are already dealing with the pressure of a failed initiative. Adil’s role as a leader is to support his team, especially during challenging times, rather than resort to coercion or fear. A more constructive approach would involve providing Sukanta with resources, training, or guidance to improve sales, rather than threatening to fire him and his team.

Option B is the best course of action because it aligns with the long-term vision of building internal capabilities, acknowledges the learning curve involved in Sukanta’s strategy, and avoids undermining the investment made in the new approach. The other options either involve prematurely abandoning the strategy, reverting to external reliance, or creating unnecessary conflict and demotivation, all of which are counterproductive to TrueColor’s goals. By adopting a patient, supportive stance, Adil can give Sukanta and his team the opportunity to refine their approach and eventually achieve the desired outcomes.