Reflection on My Leadership failure at Ericsson

On December 20, 2013, I was tasked to manage the Radio Network Optimization team of
Ericsson Ghana working on Airtel network. This was at a time when margins had reduced
and Ericsson was facing stiff competition of Chinese Telecom giant, Huawei. The emphasis
was therefore on reducing cost of operations in order to stay profitable. There was, therefore,
a restructuring programme that was been discussed which included offshoring of some of the
roles that can be performed remotely to the Ericsson Global Support Centre (GSC) in India.
The duty of my team was to measure and analyse network performance and end-user
experience in order to improve it. Also, we were supposed to help Airtel to maximize the
investments made in the network.
In line with my job description, I was supposed to ensure that Key Performance Indicators
related to the quality of service received by end-users are met. I was also to ensure that our
operations were profitability and that we avoided penalties by meeting our contractual
obligations. Furthermore, I was supposed to ensure successful transfer of some roles in GSC
India and support the downsizing of the optimization staff in Ghana. It was my duty as the
designated authority to create a coherent team by ensuring the team overcame any gaps
created by differences in culture, time zones and distance. I was required to do this using the
technologies at my disposal: conference calls, video conferencing, e-mail, chat tools, digital
white, etc. I was also tasked to ensure that all the obligations of Airtel towards the telecom
regulator, National Communication Authority (NCA) are met. Below is a simplified version
of the new organisation structure.
MANAGED
SERVICES CHIEF
OPERATING
OFFICER (MSCOO)

HEAD, RADIO
HEAD, NETWORK
NETWORK
OPERATIONS
OPTIMIZATION

ACCREDITED ACCREDITED
SERVICE SERVICE
PROVIDERS PROVIDERS

RADIO NETWORK NETWORK

OPTIMATION OPERATIONS
TEAM, INDIA TEAM, INDIA

RADIO NETWORK NETWORK

OPTIMIZATION OPERATIONS
TEAM, GHANA TEAM, GHANA

Fig. 1: A simplified version of the organisation chart

The goal of my team was to help Airtel get the most out of their network invest investment,
with the focus on the network performance and end-user experience. 1 We were supposed to

1 http://www.ericsson.com/ourportfolio/services/network-optimization?
nav=fgb_101_0092

1
meet this goal by bearing in mind the vision and mission of Ericsson while upholding the
core values of RESPECT, PROFESSIONALISM and PERSERVERNACE.2
The vision of Ericsson is to create a Networked Society, where every person and every
industry is empowered to reach their full potential.3 Also, its mission is as follows:

We lead transformation through mobility. The potential of the Networked Society lies
in transformation through mobility. Transformation in the way people organize their
individual lives and carry out vital tasks. Transformation in the way we work, the way
we share information, and the way we do business. Transformation in the way we
consume and the way we create.4
Even though the downsizing had not been completed, I was instructed to use the team in
India and the engineers in Ghana who will not be affected by the retrenchment (the engineers
did not know who will be retrenched but the managers knew). According to my manager, this
will help us understand the challenges of the new organisational structure before we actually
carry out the retrenchment. I disagreed because I did not want the situation where tasks will
be delegated to only a section of the team. With some hesitation, I was forced to implement
this. Problems then started cropping up in the team. Some of the team members complained
that they were been marginalised leading them to predict that they were candidates for the
retrenchment. This heightened tension and reduced co-operation between team members. The
few engineers in Ghana were becoming overloaded because the team in India was not
delivering according to the Working Level Agreement (WLA). The strategy was not working
and we were not meeting the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Pressure starting mounting on Ericsson from the client so I used my informal authority to
persuade the team in Ghana including those earmarked for retrenchment to join in improving
our performance contrary to my managers instruction. The Key Performance Indicators
started improving but there was another challenge. The India team was not improving and the
team in Ghana kept complaining that they were been overstretched.

Diagnostic Analysis of the case

The first step toward diagnosing the problem, that stood in the way of achieving my goal, is
to separate the technical aspects from the adaptive challenge. In the light of the mission and
goal of my team, the technical aspects of the challenge are the engineering work required to
achieve the KPIs, the use of technology tools and the creation of the new organisational
structure consisting of the virtual team in India, the financial management and the drawing up
of a working level agreement. The adaptive part is the disagreement as to the strategy to use
in achieving the targets and the cultural differences that existed between the team in Ghana
and the team in India. I and other members of the team in Ghana felt if the aim is to reduce
2 http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/company_facts/vision

3 ibid

4 ibid

2
costs, then offshoring was not the only solution. Though, it costs less in terms of labour, we
were paying penalties because we were not meeting the KPIs. Other team members
including my manager felt they have been mandated to make the new organisational structure
work so it must be implemented.
I think the adaptive challenge was the disagreement on strategy and my inability to get teams
of different cultural backgrounds to work together. I failed to let the team in Ghana
understand the new model required new ways of working. The team was used to doing the
actual technical work but now they were supposed to act as demand managers. This required
new skills and new attitudes in co-ordinating and managing the remote team in India. Rather,
the team started complaining about their frustration in getting the job done. The leadership
team requested the support of other known technical experts but the performance did not
improve. Looking back, I accept that this was a clear case of using work avoidance
mechanism to displace responsibility. Strangely, when I asked the local team to start doing
the work that was sent to India, the performance started moved towards previous levels
before the roles were offshored. Probably, this should have given the clear indication that the
problem was not technical.
Reflecting on what I happened, I realised that maybe my manager was interested in living the
mission of Ericsson which emphasises transformation of the way people work due to the
network society. Probably, since Ericsson was promoting working remotely with technology
he was under obligation to ensure that it worked. But I was concerned about our goal to
provide good experience to the end-user. Also, my own frustration at certain times
contradicted the core values of respect, professional and perseverance. Looking back, I
realise I did not persevere enough. When solving adaptive challenges, one is required to go
back and forth between implementation of actions and monitoring of the system.
I was focused narrowly on the issues at stake without looking at the stakeholders involved
and the constituencies they represented. For instance, my manager, who disagreed with me, I
now realise represented the Ericsson Global leadership team who were also interested in
ensuring that the Ericsson Global Support Centres mastered the managed services model. The
Head of Operations supported me occasionally because he had the competing commitment as
part of his role to support the achievement of the KPIs while still defending the interest of the
Ericsson Africa Leadership team. On hindsight, I think I should have expected that because
he was brought from Europe by that team.
Though I spoke the unspeakable by disagreeing with my manager, there were times that I
used work avoidance mechanisms to reduce the tension during team meetings. Looking back
I realised by asking the team in Ghana to do the work contrary to the new arrangement, I was
just fixing the technical part of the challenge. There were several conflicts between myself
and the Head of Operations whom I considered then to be incompetent. The most disturbing
part was that the head of the Optimization team in India was everybodys scapegoat. I also
blamed my manager on numerous occasions by accusing the company of signing a bad
contract with Airtel. This perspective made me see Airtel (client) as the cause of our
challenges.

Actor Analysis

3
Looking back at the challenge I faced at Ericsson, I think an actors analysis would have
helped me in spotting the similarities and differences of all the stakeholders involved in order
to form alliances that will support my goal. This would also have helped in developing a new
strategy to help all stakeholders to co-operate and focus on the goal of ensuring that the client
network performance and user-experience are improved.
A tactical thing that I should have done was to have identified values, loyalties, hidden
alliances, etc. of the various stakeholders. To mobilise change, it is important identify these
factors and ensure that the adaptive work supports those factors cherished by stakeholders.
Below is a simplified actors analysis based on the adaptive challenge of the leadership
accepting my proposal not to offshore the optimization roles to India. My philosophy at the
time was that optimization engineers must experience the same service they are providing to
customer. This can only be achieved if the engineers are situated in Ghana.

From the actors analysis, it is clear that even though I disagreed with my manager, we both
valued success and we were interested in ensuring that the KPIs are achieved. In this case,
listening to him will help me see other perspectives that I have not considered. I now realise
that the Airtel management in Ghana were my allies. Upon reflection, I am not surprised
because my relationship with each of them went beyond work. I have certain informal
authority over them due to our past relationship either as colleagues or classmates.
Though the Head of Operations did not share the same values, loyalties and risks with same,
we preferred the same outcome: stop the offshoring. He was worried about returning to
Europe with his family just when they have settled in school in Ghana. He was therefore

4
motivated to ensure we succeed. If I had done this analysis, I would probably have mobilised
enough support.

Lessons Learned
To begin with, I have learned that I would have succeeded if I was able to separate the
technical aspect of the challenge from the adaptive part. I had an interest to influence the
leadership to keep the network optimization roles in Ghana because of my principle that those
who take care of quality of service must experience the network first hand. Though this may
be a laudable idea, I could not achieve it.
I realise that one cannot tackle adaptive challenges alone. You need help from inside and
outside your organisation. I have now learnt the relevance of the actors analysis. By
preforming the actors analysis, you will identify those with common interests who are
potential allies and those with different perceptive who can help you identify your blind
spots. Also, you need people who can help you stay on course during times of extreme stress
and frustration.
Another important lesson I have learnt is that success and failure are both components of
successful leadership. I was too bent on succeeding that I did not try different things. I have
learned that one must live life as a leadership lab. There is the need to spot opportunities to
try things in order to build capacity. Also, some difficult decisions and choices that are value-
laden must be made. For instance, I was afraid to give work back to my team by asking them
to come up with strategies for achieving the targets. I have learned that this does not only
expose the blind spots of leadership but helps to build the adaptive capacity of the team.
Furthermore, I have learned that effective leadership requires self-examination and deep
reflection. I am prone to taking action and giving responses as soon as I am called upon.
Adaptive leadership, however, thrives on resisting to the temptation of giving answers too
quickly. As a talkative, silence in this case is important. Going forward, I will be spending
more time in silence, thinking and diagnosing the problems. I have decided to adapt the
strategy of listening, asking relevant questions, thinking and asking questions about my
thoughts before making my contribution.
Finally, I have learned that leadership involves making difficult decisions. Sometimes, these
decisions will affect the constituency you represent negatively. Eg. Old friends may be
retrenched. These tough decisions may lead to you questioning your values. This is the
challenging aspect of leadership because something you cherish such as a close friend,
religious belief or value may have to be sacrificed.