Sarah is worrying about who is leading the organization. The inability to get timely and adequate decisions from on high has led to a number of production crises. No one seems to care. Work experience is somewhat chaotic. No one seems to be in charge. Risk taking to surface problems and making decisions is avoided. Issues are not confronted. No one wants to be fingered as the messenger of the bad news or go unheard if the risk of speaking up is accepted.

Just when the project team was beginning to make progress, Sarah was reassigned to the production section responsible for tooling up to make the new product. For Sarah, her new job became an instant replay of her experience with the product development team. The manager in charge of the section provided little leadership. He was absent most of the time from meetings, and eventually indicated his willingness to hand over leadership of the group to one of its members. The group’s members responded by developing a meticulous selection process beginning with defining the future leader’s position, power and authority. A position description was developed. Rules of order for conducting meetings were adopted. Interested members of the group were interviewed as to how they would act if selected to be the leader. This bureaucratic process was, for Sarah, a marked contrast to the knee-jerk reaction of the product development group. The process was slow and painstaking and eventually led to the selection of a leader everyone felt comfortable with, but no one was too sure would be able to lead the group in meeting its deadlines.

Within a few months Sarah was surprised to learn that Bill had been replaced as leader of the product development group in what had been a dramatic shift of support. Bill was “dethroned” by a coalition of group members who had gone unheard and had been systematically excluded from major decision making. Bill and key members of his development team were to be reassigned.

Meanwhile the production group’s work ground on. Deadlines were missed. Work was arduous. Nonetheless, the many rules that the group had developed were followed. Regular progress and deviation reports had to be prepared. The acknowledgement that the group was not going to meet the deadlines led to the realization that more expedient means were needed. What was needed, many thought, was a more active and directive leader and less bureaucratic red tape. Coincidental with this perceived need was Bill’s availability. His experience with the product’s development and his take-charge and in some instances take-no-prisoners charismatic leadership style made him a natural to take over the leadership of the group. In contrast to everything the group had done up to this point, Bill was recruited and appointed the team leader in one meeting. Bill and his colleagues from the development team quickly energized the group. Meeting the deadlines now seemed possible.

Sarah was puzzled by what had happened. It was not too long before it was rumored Bill was being considered for an influential top spot. Despite the fact his leadership style was also eventually rejected by the production group, he made it to the top. Sarah’s frustration and skepticism with how the company was being managed continued to grow. Why was there so much trouble with organizing groups, selecting suitable leadership and getting work done? Why was it always necessary to change the structure and leadership of the groups when major problems and threats were encountered?