Seminar 11

What can we learn about effective strategic leadership from the PEPSICO case study? 

Effective strategic leadership at PEPSICO is mainly characterised by

• Effective partnerships (e.g. with Starbucks) as well as mergers and acquisitions in order to expand the company's market potential
• Locally customised products (with regards to flavour, etc.)
• A wide brand portfolio

Are being profitable and being responsible equally important? why? 


In my opinion there is a vice versa relationship between profit and responsibility in that customers nowadays expect companies not only to be profitable but also expect them to take responsibility for the well being of the environment, the public, etc. It is therefore vital for a firm to not only focus on profit but also take social responsibility. On the other hand a firm has to make profit in order to have the extra money to invest in projects that support the development/ protection of the society and its environment. It can therefore be said that both is equally important. 

How is their strategic leadership approach different or similar to other case studies?  

Similar 
+ Their approach to provide a wide range of products to cover different customer needs and pockets is similar to the "Carrefour approach" in that they also sell products of a wide spectrum.


+ PEPSICO's partnership- strategy in order to expand their customer potential is also applied by Madonna. The same holds true for their approach to position PEPSICO ("Madonna" respectively) as a strong flagship brand.


+ PEPSICO and IDEO both focus on the customer and provide products that best suit the needs/ preferences of the customer by individually (or regionally in case of PEPSICO) developing product specifications. 

Seminar 10

Why was the Faslane change successful? What did they do (or not do) that helped them to succeed?

It was agreed earlier that for change processes to be effective, they should include three steps: unfreeze, change and refreeze. Faslane and Babcock obviously managed to pass through these stages successfully. This was achieved as follows:

• Unfreeze: In order to make employees more receptive for the change process Faslane implemented "the event in the tent" sessions where employees can be informed about possible changes and goals but also are encouraged to raise issues and ask questions.
• Change: The actual change step at Faslane included various actions. Employees' focus "from the waterfront inwards rather than outwards to the ships" was turned into a clear customer oriented focus. A highly hierarchical structure was repealed in that management positions were cut. In regards to processes and procedures, series of review points were shortened what led to a speedier decision making process. Finally, the top-down leadership style was replaced through a bottom-up one and transactional management style became more transformational.
• Refreeze: The case study does not say much about this stage. However, Faslane must have been introducing changes to the organisation or structure that assure that change becomes a permanent part of the organisations.

What can we learn about effective strategic leadership from the Faslane case study?

The case study showed that especially during times of change an exchange of know-how is vital. This transfer must happen between new and experienced employees, generalists and specialists, and so on.

In addition, it became apparent that cost reductions and service improvements are possible at the same time. What is needed is a clear goal (strategic leader's responsibility), a certain autonomy for employees (limited autonomy is likely to be ineffective due to long decision making processes) and the inclusion of all affected stakeholders in the change process (customers, employees, local community, etc. in case of Faslane). 


Evidence for this leadership style being effective can be seen in the decision that Faslane would become the home base, not just for nuclear submarines but for the entire UK submarines fleet which means up to 2000 more jobs. 

How did their strategic leadership approach compare with Lynch's model?

This case study shows a hand full of parallels to the Lynch model.

• Organisation's purpose: The purpose to significantly reduce costs and improve operational effectiveness has been clearly defined and communicated within the company.  
• Competitive advantages (profit): The change in employees' mindset, speedier decision making processes, and more efficient operations clearly build the ground for sustainable competitive advantages over time. 
• Ethical standards: A focus on spending money (people's taxes) to receive the same budget again was turned into a customer oriented one what finally led to the creation of more jobs (clearly more ethical in my opinion).
• Stakeholders (external): The parent company, the MOD, the Navy Board, the commanding officer, security people, the local community, etc. were defined as stakeholders and the production process was geared accordingly.
• Human resources and organisational decisions (internal): Management of HR primarily happened in bringing change specialists from Babcock to sustain the change process at Faslane and in cutting jobs (mostly management people) to flatten the organisation's hierarchy. 

How was their strategic leadership approach different or similar to other case studies? 

Madonna's customer orientation, IDEO's strive to flat hierarchies and fast decision making processes, Energix's focus on numbers (in terms of goal definition), NHS's encouragement of open discussions can all be found in this case study to a certain point. 

Seminar 9

Does effective strategic leadership depend on the situation or is there "one right way"? Why?

In my opinion, a specific leadership style is only effective in a certain case/ situation. As seen in the “Energix” case, the same leadership style does not always suit the culture of a company and therefore might be effective in one case but not necessarily in another. It was agreed earlier in this class that being successful is amongst others about having different tools in the toolbox. In my opinion the same holds true for effective strategic leadership. That there is no one best way becomes apparent when looking at different stages of development a company can be on. While relationships between employees in a start-up company may be based mostly on trust, that might not work in a multinational company. The most effective leadership style also differs based on the geographical region, type of organisation or on different decisions to take within an organisation.

Why was David Jones successful in one role and not in another?


In conclusion, David Jones seemed to be the right person for the COO position but not for this organisation (at least not at that time: see above). While his leadership style and his ideals were appreciated and effective at his prior company that was not the case at Energix. Where as assessing the situation with a wide range of facts, systematically defining the critical issues, describing issues factually drawing conclusions through logical reasoning was the right thing to do at Jones' ancient company, it did not bring the same effect at Energix. There, more diverging approaches and an intuitive and holistic definition of the issues might have been cleverer and more adapted. 

What I have seen other people do in other case studies that might have worked well here! 

• Madonna: As seen in the "Madonna" case study, collaborating with others often brings great benefits. To get into closer contact and in some sort build collaborations with other employees (e.g. the founders of the company), might have increased the acceptance of David Jones. To put more emphasis on the development of personal relationships than on data definitely would have been to prioritise. 
• Gerry Robinson: Open discussion, as proposed by Gerry Robinson, would have prevented the lack of conversation in that employees could have asked David Jones about his task, approach, etc. and Jones in turn could have informed about the need of change etc. It is a common knowing (first introduced by Lewin) that employees are more receptive for change if the initiator "unfreezes" them first (by informing, allowing questioning, etc.). That would definitly have helped here.

Seminar 8

Is managing creativity and innovation an important aspect of effective strategic leadership?

In my opinion, the importance of being creative and innovative depends on the business area an organisation is operating in. However, every firm needs to come up with new ideas from time to time in order to remain up-to-date or even better a trend-setter. Therefore encouraging employees to think out of the box is an important aspect of effective strategic leadership.2.

What can we learn from IDEO about effective strategic leadership?

• Chaos can be constructive
• Going out and getting insights about customer needs, rather than staying in front of the computer on your desk, is far more effective
• Making decisions on ones own contains a big danger of failure. Therefore, decide in a team (by e.g. voting)

• Being a good listener
• Freedom instead of criticism (freedom according to dress code, working place, etc.)
• Motivating, establishing positive pressure
• Operating in small groups makes communication and reporting easier
• Operating in diverse teams increases creativity and filly the quality of the products/ services
• No (or fluid and flexible) hierarchy

...is most likely to be effective

3.Can you see any differences or similarities with other case studies we have considered e.g. Gerry Robinson and NHS or Challenger or Carrefour or Madonna?

= Similarities

• Gerry Robinson/ NHS: IDEO's "Have a go" approach is similar to Robinson's "Can do" approach; people are encouraged to participate by developing own ideas (and these ideas are/ shall be considered by the management)
• Madonna: IDEO's focus on functionality is based on the attempt to always siut the customers' mood.

≠ Disparities

• Challenger case: Unlike the NASA, IDEO operates on a flat hierarchy and fosters informal instead of formal communication. Managers at IDEO are equipped with excellent listening skills. What also differ IDEO from the NASA is their focus on ethics and safety whereas the NASA operated on a more money-driven basis and had to deal with huge external pressure.

Seminar 5

1.What can we learn about effective or ineffective strategic leadership from the Challenger case? 

Effective:
+ Try to get your mission accomplished (not effective in this case but in general)
+ Take some risk to achieve goals but at the same time be critic& bring things into question at the right point 
+ Having a flexible plan
+ Being a good listener& being accessible, decide democratic

Ineffective:
- Managers not being accessible for employees
Wrong priority setting, dependence on others (in this case e.g. media)
- Focus too much on profit, not taking into account ethical issues
- Single chain of command, reporting structure is inefficient and is not suited for communicating important issues quickly to the appropriate management level of consideration
- Risk management: engineers and managers not being in in the same view regarding the risk associated with the defects (different objectives)

What are the underlying reasons why the mission went ahead? 

• Publicity focus led to pressure of public opinion (shared mindset, the flight had to be launched)
• No clear regulations/ grey area on technical issues led to an easier justification of the launch
• "Space war" with Russia, several postponements before would have led to NASA "loosing their face" in case of another abort
• "Management hat" instead of using good sense, focus on profit& fulfilling promises 

Who or what was to blame? 

• In the end: all involved
• NASA management team: for silencing essential information about defects, not considering engineers
• MT management team: for not passing information to NASA, not refusing to fulfil contract for safety-related reasons
• MT engineers: for passing the buck to their management to a certain point, not involving media 

What else should the engineers have done to stop the mission?

• Stand up and stand ground!
• Probably involve media (to attract notice at the appropriate level)
• Argue beyond technical/ rational arguments

How are the sort of issues that Carrefour or the NHS or Madonna face similar or different to the Challenger case? Is it possible to compare them at all?

= similar

• decisions on issues do not only have effects on balance sheets but also on image, trust, etc.
• The challenger mission as well as Carrefour, the NHS and Madonna are in the centre of attention and therefore influenced somehow by shared mindsets

≠ different

• To Carrefour, NHS, Madonna: issues do not only causing negative effects for decision makers (as it is mainly the case in the other cases) but also for others
• Issues at the NASA concern human lives directly and therefore should be handled with an extra portion of attention and risk awareness

In my opinion, it is possible to compare the issues that the different "parties" are faced to up to a certain point because they all require decision and affect people somehow (and that is what strategic leadership is mainly about).

Seminar 4

How has Madonna managed to sustain her success for so long?
Due to her ability to sustain her reigns as the queen of pop. How? By trying hard to be controversial but staying marketable.

Madonna

• survived each setback and emerged strengthened
• creates trends that others follow
• changes her personality in order to always suit the mood of her fan base
• built and retains a committed team
• collaborates with producers, musicians, choreographs, designers, publicists, etc. successfully
• is persistent and did not give up

What can we learn about effective Strategic Leadership from the case study?

1. Be focused, targeted, business minded: requires a clear vision
2. Forecast and collaborate with others
3. Be adaptive& diverse to minimise risk: requires continuous renewal
4. Build up a loyal customer base: requires a deep understanding of customers and the industry
5. Build up sustainable competitive advantages (brand, album base, financial power, experience): leverage competences and address weaknesses

How does this case study compare with Carrefour or Gerry Robinson?

= similarities?

• To Gerry Robinson: "Can do" approach; business minded (as Gerry Robinson said, no matter what business, it can be made to work well)
• To both: competitive environment

≠ differences?

• To both: extremely adaptable, flexible
• To both: clearly communicate goals, promote history and broadcast achievements
• To both: use competitive advantages effectively
• To Carrefour: bringing people to actually do like what you are selling
• To Carrefour: Forecasting to be aligned with the trends of tomorrow

What else you want to remember from today?

1. Sustainable competitive advantage: You have to find something you are good at, customers must value what you do and what you do must be hard to copy
2. If you get the seven S's to get work well, you are (should be) successful

Seminar 3

What can we learn about effective Strategic Leadership from the Gerry Robinson case study?
One statement by Gerry Robinson I want to keep in mind (and more or less answers the question) was that any business can be made to work well - whether you are running a corner shop or a large hospital. Because good management is good management.

Memorable examples of effective or ineffective strategic leadership:
Effective

• Bridging (as an influencing style): To keep on asking employees across the organisational ladder
• "Can do" approach: support people's ideas, get things to happen, success breeds success (encouraging if people see that some things can happen), look at what the problem is, solve it and move on

Ineffective

• Laissez-faire leadership style when not everyone is skilled sufficiently and responsibilities are allocated
• Not facing the problems at the sharp end, spending to much time with the big picture, "talk about issues but do not actually do something" attitude
• Totally separated parts within the organisation, no shared values, lack of communication

}
What I learnt about persuasion & influencing from the case study and from today’s session.

• When you are not certain yourself it is quite difficult to influence others
• Power has to be established
• If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail à therefore: different influencing styles
• Persuading
• Asserting
• Bridging
• Attracting
• (Disengaging)

 

How the NHS case study compares with Carrefour.

="similarities" 

• CEO is not a credible strategic leader
• Lack of flexibility& adaptability
• Outdated& ineffective business model
• Lack of communication

≠ "differences"

• Where as Carrefour provides products that nobody wants, the demand at the NHS would be there (makes that things better or even worse?!)

What went well/ not so well with the group work?

+  1) Ex. "Persuasion& Influencing": Briefly summarising the key points an then applying it to the case
+  2) Ex. "Effective and ineffective strategic leadership": All team members contributed to the group exercise in a similar extent& quality. That led to a broad variety of examples

+  For both: Attentively listening to each other. Led to a respectful and pleasant atmosphere

-  For both: Time management

Should I reconsider my career aspiration?;-)

Of those funny circulating posts, I like this one in particular!



Seminar 2

What do I think about Carrefour and the CEO?
Lars Olofsson as the CEO and navigator of Carrefour failed - in my opinion - to manoeuvre his organisation "through the rough sea" of increasing competition. That lead to a situation where Carrefour is

• selling products that nobody wants
• at prices that no one is willed to pay
• using a business model that every one knows is outdated
• caused by insufficient stakeholder communication & lack of trend analysis

Could the CEO have done a better job?
Sometimes it might be better to first think and then act instead of deciding overhasty and trying to deal with the consequences afterwards. In other words, it might be better for Olofsson and his company to convince investors of a long-lasting strategy instead of focusing on short-term price fluctuations of shares. However, what rests unclear to me is: Is it the CEO or the cards he was dealt with who leaded to this fiasco? 

What would a good strategic leader do?
Follow the Deming Cycle:

• What issues do we have?
• What data is missing to answer these questions?
• Which model(s) should we make use of in order to make decisions?

My participation in the group exercise differs from last week as follows:
This time I kept my nose out of leading the discussion. Mainly because other team members seamed quite experienced in solving case studies of this format. As last week I proposed an approach to get all strategic issues that affect Carrefour listed and gave some inputs to the group.

+ What went well? 

• Focus on the task

- not so well?

•  Divergencies lead to discussions within the group (which in my opinion gets ineffective at a certain point because a consensus is not mandatory in this case)
• Team play

 What I want to remember from this week.

• Reflecting in action: Talking to people and analysing& reflecting immediately their reaction
• Reflecting on action: Sitting back, taking some time, "what real lessons can I take from a specific situation?"
• The closer to the action - the more effective reflection on it

Talking of Strategic Leaders...

At least committed. But also effective as a Strategic Leader? - Steve Ballmer (chief executive officer of Microsoft)

Seminar 1

One thing I’ve learnt about Strategic Leadership!

One thing I have learnt about Strategic Leadership as a combination of Strategy and Leadership is that a Leader should take into account both – an individual related point of view including the question “how to manage employees through a vision, objectives and tools” as well as a focus on the company’s strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats - in order to gain competitive advantage.
 

}How did I contribute to the group exercise?

From my point of view I took charge by first of all proposing to make a kind of a brain storming so as to define the term “Strategic Leadership” subsequently and second of all contributing some of the key aspects. At the same time I tried to respect dissenting opinions.
 

}What I might do differently if we were to do a similar exercise in future.

If we had to do the same exercise again, I would propose to part the process of defining the term even more meaning first to think about the task every group member on it’s own, then to brainstorm and finally try to find a consent. That would probably help to achieve a more diverse solution at the end.
 

What I want to remember from Seminar 1.

• Strategy: Mostly about the scope of an organisation
• Leadership: Mostly about influence
• Strategic Leadership: Does not happen in isolation; "In truth, any individual with responsibility for the performance of human capital and/or a part of the firm is a strategic leader"