Week 9 Energix

Effective strategic leadership depends on each situation. Every company is different from one another with different people, different cultures, different objectives. There is no right way of solving problems but I believe the more flexibility and the more options are available to the decision maker the better the outcome will be. A successful leader like David could not adapt to the newly founded Energix. There isn't a 'one right way', if it would have been just one way of solving all problems then David would have been very successful at Energix. Because he came from a manufacturing firm with a rational goal in mind he couldn't adapt to the situation in which Energix was.  He was successful in a way because he was involving people in the process of change, he researched the organisation. He focused on his area of expertise, on the new product development, where unfortunately the organisation showed him some resistance. He used his analytical skills to identify gaps/holes in the research and development department, an area which he understood quite well. He also used his rational and logical approach, which were in fact his most important strengths, when he attempted to redesign the way the R&D department functioned.  David unfortunately failed to gather subjective views and opinions on how the organisation was working. He couldn't adapt to the culture, he didn't understand the culture of the firm. He failed to make others undertand what he was doing. He started by redesigning from scratch the R&D department when he should have started with a minor change and analyse what the effects of that change have on the organisation and build on to that. He focused on productivity and less on the culture of the company. He demanded loyalty which is only normal to my eye but perhaps he should have been a bit softer on the employees. After the meeting with the R&D department some people went straight to the CEO and complained. He wasn't flexible, he didn't or maybe couldn't adapt to the new environment (some people resist to change). He had a set of rules and ideas on how to deal with problems and he wasn't going to change that. He didn't consider the roots of the company, how did they manage to be so successful. But the most important problem of all (I think) is that he didn't communicate well enough with his colleagues. Many problems could have been solved only by talking to other people make them understand what he was trying to achieve and ask of their opinion and they think this might be improved. A bridging method at this point would have been very very important. Because of his difficulties in communicating freely and effectively he ended up using a formal style of communication with the CEO, which I believe is not as effective as a more relaxed approach where all problems can be discussed.  Gerry Robinson could have been very efficient in this situation because of his impeccable communication skills. He would have understood the problem and he would have asked for feedback on his opinions on how to solve the problem and in most cases he will ask the employees on what they think it should be done.  Madonna would have probably used her great adaptability skills (reinvent herself) in order to get integrated in the organisation and understand how things are running.  IDEO would have probably analysed the problem very well and tried to come up with many ideas on how to solve the problem in a creative manner. Pick only the best bits of each idea to come up with the final decision.  The Challenger case would be have been probably very similar to David's situation, where employees are against the management decision. Lack of effective communication exactly like in the challenger case.