Introduction
The assessment that Blue Sky just made a temporary adjustment to a bigger problem is correct. Right now, Blue Sky is facing a situation where they have new leadership, which is going to bring about significant culture change. There will be a lot of resistance, and some changes might be required, and painful. The organization is facing some changes to the external environment that are threatening the long-run viability of key businesses, which provides an impetus to bring about organizational changes. Perhaps the biggest challenges that Willis faces are internal, where there is a very ingrained culture that will be quite resistant to change. He will need to be very careful with respect to how this change is brought about, if it is to be successful.

Some of the issues are with personnel, some of them executives, so there will be a degree of interpersonal conflict, but then there is also the question of Willis’ mandate. He was hired by Max Blue as his replacement, but Max Blue is still the Chairman of the Board. So Willis has to navigate those political waters as well. Willis has at least one ally in Hubres, but she is probably still seen as an outsider, and is going to have to fight for influence.

Leadership Style

The former CEO was Max Blue, who had an autocratic style. He would often be willing to listen to others, but retained a highly-centralized form of decision-making. Iqbal, Anwar & Haider (2015) studied this leadership style, and found that it can be useful in the short run, but in the long run a more democratic leadership style is more likely to lead to higher performance. In the short run, the autocratic style can get things done, especially where there are seemingly intractable conflicts within the executive leadership team. This actually seems like the autocratic style might have merit in this particular situation for Willis, even if it is not his natural style.

Willis needs to bring about a transformation in the organization, certainly over the long run. Studies have shown that a transformational leadership style is more conducive than an autocratic style for generating motivation and higher levels of commitment in employees (Naile & Selesho, 2014). This implies that to bring about the needed changes at Blue Sky that will allow it to thrive going forward, a certain amount of transformational leadership behaviors will be required, despite the apparent need for autocratic leadership in the short run. The key is that it is going to be difficult to shift from autocratic to transformational quickly, that more likely the change will need to be at least a little bit gradual in nature, otherwise it might be too jarring.

It is imperative that Willis understands the role that leadership style plays in an organization. Blue Sky grew under a leadership style that probably was beneficial because it provided the company with a steady hand while going through its growth stages. But the company is now under new leadership and in terms of its strategy is also an at inflection point. It simply cannot continue either with the same leadership style, because Willis is not Blue, and because of the new external threats that the company is facing. Willis needs to adopt an approach to leadership that will position the company for success going forward.

Motivation

There were probably two main approaches to motivation for Blue Sky in the past. One was that people bought into Max Blue’s vision for the company. One of the elements of a more transactional approach to leadership, which is where the company probably has been in the past few years as Blue was heading towards retirement, is contingent reward (Khan, Nawaz & Khan, 2016). This is exemplified by the ownership stake that employees have in the company. The deal was really that if employees perform their jobs well, then the company will do well, and that will be a big part of their retirement funds. Now, the company has...…how their roles will change. He will need to listen to them, and in the case of one or two maybe be prepared to put a package together for them to retire out of the company. Ultimately, if there were issues in the short run it was because everybody was defending their established turf, including their way of doing things and how they made decisions. They do not necessarily trust Willis and certainly do not trust Hubres. If need be, Willis has to be prepared to bring Blue back into the conversation – as Chairman of the Board he is in a unique position to give Willis a further vote of confidence.

Conclusions

Willis is facing a period of organizational change. The first thing he needs to do is ensure that he outlines his plan to Blue, who is Chairman of the Board and therefore still highly influential with the other executives. If he lends his full support behind Willis’ plan, that will go a long way to quelling any issues. However, there are specific changes Willis needs to make in order to implement greater controls, maybe make shifts in the org design, and certainly to implement strategic planning, more input from the Hubres and Counts, and to decentralize some of the decision-making. Ultimately, Willis is going to need to adopt a transformational approach to leadership.

That said, he cannot expect that he will be able to do this immediately. He has to realize that the entire structure and culture is based around autocratic leadership, where each leader within the company has a specific locus of control. Willis, as CEO, will be somebody to whom people defer. Studies show that autocratic leadership can be effective in the short run, and certainly when driving change and minimizing conflict, this is something that will need to be utilized, if only to create enough stability for transformational leadership efforts to be implemented and start to bear fruit.