Leadership Styles Of Robert Horton

1369 Words6 Pages
Leadership Styles BP
Robert Horton was selected as the new Chief Executive officer in 1989:
Horton took the company through a period of restructuring and was accused of a number of poor decisions including inconsistent planning, diversification and subsequent divestments, shift away from its US operations, emphasizing high risk exploration in the North Sea, and continuous downsizing. The result was a demoralized workforce, the company 's first ever reported quarterly loss during 1991 and out of control debt. Horton was forced out in a boardroom coup in 1992. His job was split in two and David Simon was appointed the Chief Executive. (O 'Regan, & Ghobadian, 2010)
Mr. Horton became heir to years of strategic inconsistency from Sir Peter…show more content…
Unfortunately, if managers are stressed and does not have to staff to get make any production in the company, they will falter and become frustrated.
“Horton was forced out in a boardroom coup in 1992. His job was split in two and David Simon was appointed the Chief Executive. He immediately cut the dividend in two, and the share price plummeted but Simon established the situation by changing management style and culture.” (O 'Regan, & Ghobadian, 2010).
Horton may have been suffering from a blind spot in his leadership skills. Daft covers the definition of blind spots as characteristics or habits that people don’t recognized as problems but which limit their effectiveness and hinder their career success (Daft, 2015 p. 101). Even though his goals made sense to him as the right thing for the company, he had obligations to the employees and at the end of all the cuts, his current employees seemed to suffer the most. The next leader in line had a more innovative sense of where he should take the company. Leadership takes skill. John Browne was appointed CEO in 1995. The operator of a “two pipeline” company, was now the leader of a globally known business (O 'Regan, & Ghobadian, 2010). Browne was known for taking advantage of the low cost of oil around that time and using it to merge the company with other oil companies playing the field at that time (O
Show More
Related
Open Document