Enron

Integrative Case – The Downfall of Enron

Part I

1. Ken Lay served as CEO and chairman and Jeffrey Skilling also served as CEO. They both were responsible for planning, organizing, controlling and leading the company. They set goals for the company and organized how they would be achieved. Kay’s role was as the figurehead and the leader. He also served as the spokesperson for the company and made many of the decision on the future of the company. As CEO’s they both possessed effective communication skills, where decisive, which was evidenced by their vision for the company and refusal to admit wrong even at the end, and visionary. Throughout Lay’s tenor the company continued to grow and prosper at a fast pace.
2. The challenges faced were those of a changing workforce, competitiveness, and globalization, as well as ethics and social responsibility. While many companies were downsizing in the mid-1980s, Enron continued to grow and expand despite their lofty goals. They ventured out into foreign markets to be more competitive. The workforce also became more diverse and the characteristics changed. Employees during Enron’s tenor were less devoted to long-term career prospects; instead they were more interested in financial gain at any cost. Ethics seemed to be a secondary thought for most people during Enron’s time. To meet these challenges Enron executives had to make working for their company more attractive and lucrative.
3. The contributing factors to their ineffectiveness were poor planning and leadership. The company grew to quickly. In their desire to grow and expand, the company’s senior management did not establish and follow ethical practices that would sustain the company. Controls were not established in key places, such as, accounting practices and principles. Senior management failed to appropriately manage the activities of lower level managers and set a bad example.

Part II – The People

1. Enron sought out young, ambitious, recent college graduates and placed them in entry-level positions and then gave them the autonomy to make big trade decisions. The few star performers were promoted very quickly. Taking this hiring approach benefited the company because it kept labor costs low due to the employee’s inexperience. It also ...

... middle of paper ...

...y grew and prospered very quickly. Employees were motivated to be creative and come up with the next great idea or innovation to increase revenue. These values also hurt the company because it put constant pressure on employees to achieve and constantly pushed them to excel in order to produce more revenue for the company and advance in the company. This forced employees to use unethical practices. They were often left to use their own devices to achieve the aforementioned results. There were no checks in balances in place with respect to managing subordinates.
3. Organizations must change in order to meet the needs of the changing workplace, environment, technology, and economy in order to be competitive. Change is good for an organization if it is done in a controlled and structured manner. Change is also risky because it is often met with resistance. For example, people may feel threatened and fear power loses and subsequently, resists the change. Change can also be ineffective if it is narrow and doesn’t concern itself with people and is over determined. In Enron’s case, the organization was constantly changing with no collective rhyme or reason.