The case study: MRW’s response to pregnancy

The story
MRW, based in Barcelona, is Spain’s biggest courier business. In the spring of 2010, the company was immersed in developing its services internationally; it had appointed a new chief executive; and it was adjusting its business model to both the economic downturn and the need to keep up with customers’ use of technology.

The most critical issue was the instability of MRW’s IT systems. These not only harmed MRW’s reputation for efficiency – vital for a courier company – but also put its business operations, which included invoicing systems, in jeopardy.

MRW decided to create the post of systems administrator, which would be vital to its development. At that time, MRW had more than 14,000 employees, managing 22m dispatches a year.

The challenge
Shortly after the new recruit Maria* took up the new post she revealed she was pregnant, and that the pregnancy was deemed high-risk.

MRW had to decide on its response fast. Strict belt-tightening, adopted to help weather the economic crisis, made it impossible to find someone else to do the job without firing her.

However, MRW was proud of its record on corporate responsibility and viewed it as integral to its identity.

The initial response
The employees directly responsible for the task of establishing the new IT systems immediately started looking for a replacement with the knowledge and skills required for the position.

Meanwhile, the human resources department wanted to adopt a problem-solving approach that would consider everyone’s views as well as the “costs” – not just financial – that firing Maria would entail.

The strategy
The HR department aimed to reach a decision that was fair to all and took into account both MRW’s values and the costs of conflict, including any legal action for unfair dismissal. HR took a systemic approach, in which it analysed the personal, relational, departmental, organisational, social, legal and moral consequences of any decision.

First, the HR department decided it should avoid a confrontation with the IT managers. They were under tremendous pressure to solve the computing problems and the new CEO would hold them accountable.

Second, the HR department looked for a joint decision. So HR and IT agreed to consider Maria’s attitude to her role while she took leave to take care of her pregnancy in the summer of 2010. For instance, Maria offered to work from home despite not being obliged to do so.

Meanwhile, HR tried to manage in a rational way the antagonism felt by the IT department towards Maria. When HR and IT were considering Maria’s voluntary contributions, HR staff worked on calming the IT people down, including by putting the other side of the story to them.

The guiding principle was that the cost of an agreement is less than that of disagreement. Another consideration was the effect on the workplace of legal action: what would it have been like for MRW overall, and the IT department in particular, to work with someone they no longer trusted, and who did not trust the company?

The result
Maria’s pregnancy was less troubled than expected; her baby was healthy; and she returned to work in 2011 not much later than most women after a normal pregnancy.

Importantly, she achieved her task of leading the stabilisation of MRW’s IT system. Ultimately, the decision not to fire Maria was judged a success.

The lessons
First, the company learnt the value of not acting hastily. Second, the episode helped clarify the company’s view of itself. Third, MRW learnt ways to keep its conduct in a crisis consistent with its corporate values – by a strategy of rational discussion, flexibility and desire to reach consensus.

-Financial Times, 15 Oct. 2012