Download, read, and reread the case Satya Nadella at Microsoft: Instilling a Growth Mindset. Your paper will essentially summarize the case, specifically focusing on what challenges Nadella faced as a leader, what steps he took to overcome those challenges, and whether he succeeded or not. Your responses must be supported by the facts of the case, and make appropriate reference to course materials. 1. What was Nadella’s diagnosis of the problems at Microsoft? a. What were the biggest challenges he faced when he took charge? b. Which of Lencioni’s 5 areas of dysfunction in teams were most present at Microsoft? c. What goals did Nadella set for transforming the organization? 2. In thinking about Nadella’s style and the steps he took as a change leader, address the following: a. Drawing on Daniel Goleman’s “Leadership that Gets Results” (from Week 3), which styles of leadership most closely match Nadella’s demonstrated behaviors? Explain. b. Which of Jack’s “8 Rules of Leadership” are most evident in Nadella’s initiatives? Explain using specific examples from the case to support your response. c. In terms of company culture, how did Nadella change specific systems and processes to improve teamwork? d. Nadella frequently uses the term “growth mindset.” What does this mean, and how did he foster it? 3. How effective have Nadella’s efforts been? In particular: a. What metrics should be used to evaluate the success of his efforts? Why? a. What else could Nadella and his team do to sustain the wins they have achieved so far? b. What additional challenges do you expect he will face?
Requirements: 4 pages
Avoidance of accountability is another dysfunctional area in Microsoft whereby leadership was not held accountable for the culture they created. The most driven team members who lack a clear plan of action hesitate to question the actions and behaviors of peers despite being counterproductive for the group (Patrick, 2002). Inattention to results is an area of dysfunction at the company since the organization utilized the stack ranking performance management system. It pitted staff members against each other, whereby after every six months, some employees would receive a poor rating regardless of their contributions. Team members prioritize their individual needs, such as recognition, over the group’s collective goals (Patrick, 2002).