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