challenge

Strategic leadership doesn't really depend on 'a situation' in an organisation. In order to be a good strategic leader, one must be willing to make changes and understand why the change is to be made, in most cases it is for the benefit of the organisation. 

a strategic leader should be able to analyse, formulate, implement and evaluate situations and issues in the organisation.
There is no 'one right way' as different organisations have different cultures and management styles. The question is 'what style suits?' And 'does it work?'
Firstly David understood what he was asked to do when he was appointed, which was to identify, systemise and improve the core process of the organisation, by bringing some discipline and focus to the company. 
David learned to lead a company known for its 'bench strength' management style. A stern style. Somewhat a command-and-control style of leadership. 
To an extent, david was able to gain a strong sense of loyalty among his people because of the intensity with which he upheld the company's commitment to leadership development. 
David was able to push the company to the next level by pushing the energix's next generation large turbines into the market, even though it was a year behind schedule. 
He was able to do this because of the background and experience he had. 
David was also able to point out numerous holes in the company's stucture but was unable to impose and implement change. 
Lack of communication with his superiors did not help this underlying issue. 
On the other hand, he wasn't suCcesful in implementing change in the companys' culture as the existing managers did not quite agree with his change, they prefered the 'the way we do things here' approach. 
He was used to a high level of discipline with clear agendas and actionable decisions made in time frames. 
There wasnt good communication from the managers parts as they had lacked an open discussion culture. 
He also found himself between a rock and a hard place as he encountered stonewalling attributes in his meetings. They listended but didn't commit to his plans. They believed that his plans and style could be distruptive if not managed properly. They did not give him a chance, meaning he experienced a catch22. They should have given him a chance and furthermore he should have imposed it. Just like the Faslane case study. 
The commitee members seemed to have a reason or excuse as to why things couldn't be done in a certain way. 
Two employees went behind his back to raise concerns of his plans and this was wrong. This breakdown and deteriorating of relations between them led to a failed communication culture/style, Letting the managers/employees run the organisation rather than david running it. 

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

FASLANE moving in the Fast-lane

The faslane case study was a change that put them (the HM Naval Base Clude) in the fast-lane! 
Faslane had been run entirely by the MOD and the royal navy, but in 2000 the MOD decided to reduce costs significantly and improve their operational effectiveness of their naval bases. 

One of the steps that faslane took towards sucsess was that, After partnering with industrial firms, the MOD intended in delivering a £76m savings for a five year period. At the same time the firms had to reduce costs as they would not profit if there were No savings. 
This was a huge task for babcock as they had to manage a population of 7500 people. From civil servants, to security personnel, police, moD guard service, royal marines, sailors including ships and submarines.

 
The customer support ethos wasn't right. The staff saw buildings as important rather than the service/support they could offer. This was one difficulty as it was the way they did things before the change. The change/challenge was to become more focused on delivering services to the sustomer, the navy.

 
Another reason they didn't bother about reducing costs in the past was their mindset; which was to do their jobs well with minimun possible spending. They had to change the mindset of their staff in order to achieve success
There was a hierarchy in place and everyone was accountable due to limited autonomy
The good thing about the change was that the commodore in charge when this process started was willing to change from infrastructure focus to naval focus.

 
He also had a management team with a mix of people who believed change was necessary
Their strategic change was to manage their staff differently. By seeing how money was being spent and also focusing on delivering servises to their customers. 
They imposed the change by making them involved rather than giving them the chance to be involved. This was a stern implementation of change. They "removed shackels from people" so they could also come up with their own change ideas. 
They followed examples of other companies and found out that they needed to implement changes early. 
They had good and close communication and openness with their staff. If there was good or bad news. It was told as it was. 
I have learned that effective strategic leadership can be seen, used and implemented in different ways. Either to a workforce that wants to accept it willingly or unwillingly. Also in strategic leadership leaders have to make their staff happy at all times in order to get high productivity. In this case it was a service 
The strategic leadership was different to the NHS as Faslane spotted their issues and goals and tackled it head-on. The NHS staff did not want change and the head management left it as that, rather than imposing it. Knowing that it would have been for the benefit of the organisation. 
Carrefour should also have done the same, which was to impose change into the organisation. 
In comparison to Madonna change was needed and change was adopted which resulted in success and productivity. 

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

DYSON unrelated

As I stumbled on an entrepreneurship and innovation note I made during class, when a substitute lecturer came in to help the class as our main teacher was away. I decided to blog my notes. He talked about large company innovation- DYSON
Dyson was/is an engineer by trade and he had tried to innovate and work around different existing products, such as the wheel barrow.
He made an already existing hoover into one domestic appliance that people today can relate his name to, he made an existing innovation better! 
He also made the see-through hoover that would help the user know when to empty it. With this; he was told by his marketing advisors that he could charge whatever price he wanted. With that being said, he charged the highest premium to customers. 
In addition, he got an 8 year patent. Meaning that others won't be able to copy his 'style' until the 8 years had run out...this gave him an advantage over his competition. 
He built a UK factory and stated that he wanted to improve and increase british manufacturing. After 8 years, his competitors copied his idea and outsourced and assembled their products with cheaper material and manpower. This was detrimental to his business as he had to reduce his prices to try and beat or compete with his competition. 
After a while he eventually and regrettably had to move his manufacturing plants outside the UK. Something he didn't ever want to do. 
The longest patent ever is said to be 25 years, patents protects the investors as it helps them recoup their money back. It also creates innovation as others will try to 'find a way around' so to speak. 
Apparently...Dyson now lives in a 'subsistence economy' where he just has enough to survive. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

PEPSICO the Amoeba (shape-shift organisation)

Pepsico is the second largest food and beverage company in the world, from cream sodas to oats to cookies. They have a 19 product line that generates about $1b+ annually. 
They get in about $60b in revenue yearly and over the years they have racked about $105b in revenue. 
They even have partnerships with companies like starbucks and are operating in over 200 countries
This has given them the ability to acquire a strong work force, employing about 285000 people world wide
Indra Nooyi, a business executive who is the current chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of PepsiCo, the second largest food and beverage business in the world according to reliable source forbes. 
As a leader, she has decided to change their business strategies. they have a big mission by trying to increase their revenue from $10b-$30b. 
By thinking about the consumer, they are changing their strategies to 'fun-for-you' 'better-for-you' and 'good-for-you'. 

In addition to that, they are also diving into the dairy products industry, as they want to get a foothold there too. this is something they can do baring in mind that they own the greatest portfolio of brands. 
They have evaluated their social responsibility and are willing to take the step of not only making profit but also being socially responsible, by tackling issues such as obesity, under nourishment and over nourishment. 
A brave and wise decision was to take out sugary products from schools. They are regulating nourishment by not ignoring the under nourished and also monitoring the over nourished.
Also, they intend on breaking into the chinese market, by adopting a new strategy, which is using a new model that suits the chinese economy rather than adopting or using the model they used in the american market. Eg. They will make chips, grown and chipped in china, but with chinese flavours. This will suit the chinese people rather than imposing what the americans eat or like on the chinese market. 

Their balance in portfolio is socially responsible as they are looking at how consumers can eat healthily. Eg tackling obesity. 
Being profitable and responsible are equally important, In this way, they are balancing out both their profit and responsibility in the long and short term. This social responsibility helps both the organisation and the individual. 

As henry ford said, "a business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business". 

Pepsicos long term self interests lies with the acceptance of their strategy from the society. consumers these days are all trying to be responsible health-wise. Eating right is definitely one way to go about it. 
Pepsicos strategic leadership approach is very similar to the Madonna and IDEO case study as they are not only willing to take risks, but at the same time they are open to change.

Unlike the CARREFOUR case study where lars olofson did not give chance to change in his leadership style. 
As I said in my NASA blog, Ineffective strategic leadership can result to loss, Either monetary wise or health wise. 

PepsiCo's leadership and management style seems to be very well structured and organised, in comparison to NASA's. They are following and observing protocols, and are showing signs of moral, ethical and social responsibility. In this case, I can say that pepsiCo have put on their ethics/morals hat and also worn their money/profit shoes. Meaning that they are dressed for the economic situation/occasion. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device