Question

Team Case #3: Rural Utility

Your consulting team has been brought in by the Board chairperson to assist an organization in developing a key leader. The Board is concerned with Audrey, the current senior executive of their rural public utility company with 185 employees. The company is 76% male and 24% female, and their previous executive, Hugh Davis (who retired), had a very collaborative leadership style – a real contrast from Audrey, who is very task-focused and directive. The average employee tenure is 9 years, and many have been here 12 or more years. Audrey has been in her position for about 18 months now, having been recruited by the Board from outside the organization. It was a shock to many employees that she was hired, because many believed Jake, one of their managers, should be given that role (Jake is no longer with the organization, having accepted a new opportunity elsewhere two months after Audrey began).

Audrey has extensive experience with a similar organization in a much larger metro area, though she left her previous leadership position – which she held for 12 years – under a cloud of rumors about an affair with a colleague. Since her arrival, her employees seem to be split between those who support her completely and those who believe she was a major hiring mistake.

Over the past year, several employees (including several managers) have been contacting Board members complaining about Audrey’s performance. Board members are aware of the declining morale among both managers and employees, and are concerned that the organization has lost many valuable people in the past year. They have heard that even more are actively looking for a new workplace.

The Board has done some investigating on their own and have heard the following:

• Most administrative staff support Audrey, and believe others don’t like the fact that Audrey is a woman or that she comes from a metropolitan rather than rural area.
• Audrey “plays favorites” and is likely to come down hard on some people for rule infractions but turns a blind eye when others do the same things. Others say that she’s just cracking down on people with a reputation for being ‘slackers.’
• She is often late for project meetings or management updates, by as much as two hours, without letting people know that she will be late. Sometimes she skips meetings completely and does not apologize or explain afterwards.
• Audrey has achieved some great financial results so far by reducing their costs and increasing revenue by raising customer rates. Board members generally view these as hard but necessary actions; employees and managers find themselves struggling with tighter budgets and having to diffuse angry customers.
• Many employees are still angry that Audrey laid several people off during her first year here – a move they believe was unnecessary and that was motivated because “she just didn’t like them.”
• She is viewed by many as a micro-manager, often questioning managers’ decisions or looking over someone’s shoulder as they order office supplies or distribute mail.
• Many complain that the rules “don’t apply to her” – that she often comes in late to work, and ‘hides’ to avoid dealing with people’s issues or concerns. Audrey herself says that what time she arrives should be of no concern to people, since she often works from home early in the morning or late at night. She describes that she wants people to make good decisions themselves and not rely on her for everything.

Audrey believes she has a collaborative approach to working with her managers, but you have learned that many of them see her as arrogant, rude, condescending, and domineering, and sometimes over-stepping her authority by taking actions without consulting the Board. Others believe she does not listen to their point of view and takes credit for their work.

Board members are tired of people calling or emailing them to complain about her. They would like to retain her because of her technical expertise and business acumen. However, they are considering terminating her because of the negativity she has aroused.

The Board has hired your team to advise them. What seems to be going on here, resulting in increased turnover and low morale? What might account for the differences of opinion as described by employees? And most importantly, what will you recommend (e.g., actions, development opportunities) to help this organization and increase Audrey’s leadership capacity (though she believes she needs no help and people should just get used to the fact that she leads differently than Hugh)? Be specific in your recommendations, and be sure to back them up with evidence.

1. Analysis of the problem: What seems to be going on in this case—what is the leadership and/or performance problem to be addressed? Why might the challenges presented in the case be happening? o Be sure to consider to what extent there are multiple perspectives from which to view or understand this case.

B. Based on your analysis, determine a course of action to address the challenges as comprehensively as you can. o Identify recommended actions. o For each recommendation made, provide the rationale (evidence-based) and a statement as to what will likely result from this recommended action (what problem(s) it will help to resolve). o If there are potential risks or unintended consequences of a particular course of action, make this explicit and indicate further actions that may help mitigate this risk.

Answer 1

The given case about Audrey at the utility company is one of a senior leader struggling to fit into an organization culturally while being able to deliver business results and the associated dilemma that the company board has in deciding what to do over her future.

While there is evidence to believe that her being a woman and from a non-rural area is a part of the issue (these are not really her fault as a professional) there are enough documented incidences of behavioural issues which are putting off employees at various levels. Adding to the complexity is the fact that she was appointed ahead of Jake who was popularly seen as the successor to Hugh the incumbent. It is quite possible that the appointment of someone from outside the organization did not go down well with the employees who can feel demotivated in such cases, especially since the timing of Jakes departure from the company seemed to suggest dissatisfaction over the leadership transition. Clearly there is no denying that despite business results there is negativity within the organization that needs to be taken care of.

185 employees is not a large sized organization and there can definitely be steps taken towards addressing the issues both individually and culturally.

• The board has to be forthright and forthcoming with Audrey on the fact that her leadership style is creating negativity in the company and is a real issue that needs to be mitigated going forward otherwise it is an untenable relationship. They must agree on the fact that things will need to improve over a certain timeline failing which they should part ways.
• The behavioural issues identified - micromanaging, non-participative approach, overexceeding authority etc. are intrinsic to Audrey and he would need to change her behaviour around these issues, especially in interactions with the Board and the senior leadership team
• The board on their part should also ensure that she is being treated fairly by the wider team and there are no issues related to her being a woman or from a non-rural background. To this extent there should be HR driven programs that educate the employees about the importance of diversity within an organization, across dimensions like gender, race, ethnicity, educational background etc.
• The issues and action plan so identified need to be documented with the board and aligned with a planned timeline for review. Given the timelines already spent the organization should look at a 6-12 month period of consideration with a minumum of a quarterly review on progress versus plans. Key employee morale improvement indicators and metrics will have to be identified for review. E.g. attrition, formal feedback, 360 sesssions etc.

There will be risks to the resolution plan charted out above - if Audrey feels this is unfair she may herself move out coluntarily and there would be a gap in leadership and given that she has overseen good business results through tough decisions it may work against the organization. To that extent the Board will need to identify an individual internally who can be an interim substitute and ensure that he or she is ready to take over in such an eventuality and mitigate business risk.