The fall of the last Anglo-Saxon King: a case of leadership failure during a crisis.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The process of Crisis Management can be broken out into three distinct phases: pre-crisis preparation, dealing with the crisis itself, and learning from the ordeal after the crisis is over. While the study of all phases is important, this case examines the most crucial phase, the actual crisis itself. The case describes the Battle of Hastings, placing emphasis on the decisions made by Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon King of England. First the events leading up to the battle are presented to provide the context and show the preparations undertaken by Harold. Next the Battle itself is explored.

The most important skills that a leader can have in dealing with a crisis are the ability to reasonably and objectively evaluate real-time feedback, and the ability to adapt to your surroundings and change course, quickly and decisively, as the situation evolves. The Battle of Hastings demonstrates the failures that can occur when a leader does not have these skills. Crisis management and leadership are the primary topic areas covered. In the questions following the case, students are asked to research and examine three specific well-known crisis situations--the New Coke fiasco, the Tylenol scare and the Apollo 13 accident. Information on these cases is widely available on the internet. Instructors can adjust the questions to fit other crisis situations that the students might be more familiar with. The case is designed for senior level undergraduates or entry MBA level students (difficulty 4/5). It is designed to take two hours of class time with two hours of outside preparation if the Coke/Tylenol/Apollo13 questions are addressed, and one hour of class time with one hour of outside preparation for the Battle of Hastings alone.

CASE SYNOPSIS

In the spring of 1066AD, Harold Godwinson was celebrating his third month as the Anglo-Saxon King of England. This new king acquired two fairly powerful enemies almost immediately--William, the Duke of Normandy, and Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, both of whom were preparing to invade. So the king called out to the entire kingdom for men to mobilize, had defensive positions built along the southern coast at strategic locations, and had many staging areas set up on good ground where he could rally troops and defend the land against invasion.

Hardrada was the first to make a major attack, finally landing near York in the central eastern part of the island. The well-trained English reached them in a few days and used tactics that had proved successful in earlier uprisings. They were able to repel the Norwegian invaders in one day.

Meanwhile, William's army had landed and proceeded to the town of Hastings. Harold arrived in London ahead of his main force and moved toward Hastings with a new army of relatively untrained men. The forced march that worked with his seasoned troops did not work with the new soldiers. It is estimated that no more than a third of the English army, was on the field when William, long since ready to attack, approached. Unlike previous adversaries, the Norman army had knights and archers who rendered Harold's previously successful tactics ineffective. Harold was unable to adjust during the battle. Despite careful planning and proven successful tactics, the short-lived career of the last Anglo-Saxon King was over.

INSTRUCTORS' NOTES

The case is an interesting one, as it is not related to the business world or even to the modern world. It is nearly 1000 years old. But, its lesson is timeless, a lesson that shows how badly things will turn out if you cannot think on your feet and are not flexible enough to change a plan that has served you well in the past when the feedback is screaming at you to do just that.

Crisis management and leadership are the primary topic areas covered. The case is designed for senior level undergraduates or entry MBA level students (difficulty 4/5). It is designed to take one hour of class time with one hour of outside preparation. The case should be handed out at least one week before covering it in class. The students should be instructed to read the case and be prepared to answer the questions. If it fits into the class structure, the students can be asked to provide written answers. Given a week or more to read the case and prepare answers gives the students ample time to do additional research on the Battle of Hastings, Harold Godwinson, and other case elements. MBA students should be required to do some additional research, such as locating maps of the battle, developing a profile of Harold, or finding analysis that supports their answers to the discussion questions.

In class, the case analysis can start with the short introductory lecture. This can be followed by a summary of the story elicited from the students, to get them talking about the case. Next the discussion questions should be addressed in order. The answers provided are fairly straightforward and the class discussion may drift a bit but the main points will most likely be made. The answers to the final question can be segued into a conclusion.

Each discussion question about Harold is augmented with parallel 'b' questions that refer to three specific well-known crisis situations--the New Coke fiasco, the Tylenol scare and the Apollo 13 accident. These three cases were chosen because (1) they deal with different types of real crises, (2) there is a great deal of information and analysis about them readily available on the internet. The instructor can use just the 'a' questions, incorporate the 'b' questions for some link to more current situations or use other supplemental questions.

Introductory Lecture

The recognized truth is that some number of crises will happen to each and every one of us, eventually.

So, it is a good idea to plan for the likely crises that will harm you, because preparing for them will help you cope with and react appropriately when any one of them occurs.

But it is important to realize that your plan will be inadequate in some way, maybe in some very fundamental way, when the actual event occurs. Somehow, it will fail to fully meet the needs of the crisis. For each crisis is unique, at least in the particulars. Things are apt to move, evolve, and change during the event. "Crises do not stand still. They evolve ... situations change ... new data emerges that contradicts earlier information." (Barton, 2001b). Moreover, no one can prepare for every eventuality. No one has the resources to do that.

The ability to think on your feet during a crisis is vital if you are to get through it. And, that ability is of paramount importance for the crisis management team leader. This is the person most people will look to when a crisis occurs, and if this person cannot think, act, and change things on his/her feet, not only will his/her followers defect, but the crisis will overwhelm the organization s/he hopes to protect.

If you are that team leader, you must be able to:

Continuously sift through, sort out, and reasonably evaluate the real-time feedback you are receiving during the crisis (this, of course requires that you set up a mechanism for that feedback), and

Then act quickly and decisively to integrate some of and to adapt or change the rest of your pre-crisis planning, as appropriate and based on that feedback.

In a word, you must be flexible.

And, you must cultivate this skill long before you try to lead the way out of a crisis. Moreover, you must guard against ego and arrogance, so as not to view the feedback you're getting through a clouded lens or worse ignore it altogether.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. (a) What is a crisis? Is War a crisis?

Few people would argue that war is not a crisis that must be managed very carefully. Barton (2001b) describes a crisis as being "unexpected, overwhelming and negative." It is certainly negative--people die. It is self-evidently overwhelming in nature. And, while sometimes expected, no one can truly grasp its nature until s/he is in the thick of it. Moreover, the battles in war and the war itself meet Pearson and Clair's definition of a situation that presents a "dilemma in need of a decision or judgment that will result in a change for the better or worse."

(b) What business situations are crises?

Student answers to this question will vary from general categories such as natural disasters, product failures and terrorism to specific cases. A wide variety of answers should be actively solicited in order to make the point that there are many types of crisis situations that can arise in business settings. Near the end of the discussion the instructor can refer to Barton's description of a crisis as being "unexpected, overwhelming and negative." (Barton, 2001b). This description will most likely cut across and summarize the answers given by students.

2 (a) Clearly Harold was in a crisis, and clearly he did not manage it well--as he lost. The first stage in crisis management is pre-crisis preparation. Was Harold's failure a lack of preparation?

Preparation Is Not Enough

It could not have been for lack of preparation. Harold was clearly prepared for both invasions. He had a good spy network and, for his time, incredible communications network. He prepared several sites for troop deployment. And, he raised a strong, well-equipped and well-trained army, at least the first time.

Yet, all of this preparation did not help him win the day. True, he did not take into account the inferiority of his forces at Hastings, both in training and in type. But, he undoubtedly expected to drive the enemy from the field long before that would be a factor. No, Harold was very prepared. It's just that preparation is not enough.

Harold failed, because: 1) He could not properly evaluate the feedback that was out there; neither before arriving or during the course of the battle. And, he failed, because 2) He could not adapt his simple, but previously successful, way of doing things in the face of the changing situation he encountered at Hastings.

Harold needed to be able to handle the crisis itself.

(b) Consider three famous recent crises--the New Coke fiasco, the Tylenol scare and the Apollo 13 accident. (information on these crises is widely available on the internet) Were these crises caused or exacerbated by a lack of preparation?

Like Harold's situation, none of these crises were caused by a lack of preparation.

The Tylenol scare was an unanticipated act that took place outside of Johnson & Johnson's control. Once it happened, changes in packaging and other preventive measures were put into place to minimize the chances of recurrence.

The Apollo program went to great lengths to anticipate and train for handling all manner of problems. The notion of handling a crisis in real time as it occurs was a key component of NASA mission preparation. They knew that if and when a problem occurs in a mission it might be something unanticipated, therefore the training and procedures focused on diagnosis, analysis and problem solving, not just problem recognition and implementation of existing solutions.

Only the New Coke failure could have been reasonably been prevented, but not by crisis prevention methods.

3 (a) Why did Harold fail to properly evaluate the feedback before moving on Hastings?

Harold The Blind

Surely, he was not a stupid man. He had seized the throne, after all. And, he had managed to hold it against the rightful heir and other local lords who all wanted it. He had made all of the preparation for war previously mentioned. And, he had won at Stamford Bridge not three weeks before his downfall.

No, he was not stupid. He simply did not set up any kind of organized feedback mechanism with which to be able to properly evaluate anything of the situation before he moved on Hastings. Most notably, he did not set up a defensive screen on his approach. That feedback mechanism would have given him real-time data on the current state and subsequent evolution of the situation. Reports of the opposing army's size, location, intent, and disposition would have streamed into his camp.

This was not only a basic tactic of the time, but it was a crucial one--for all armies. And, it is highly unlikely that he did not know this, especially since he had exhibited the ability to do something like this sort of preparation in setting up his spy network and his communication network.

Yet, because he did not do this fairly simple thing. He was supremely disadvantaged, as evidenced by his surprise on arrival at the battle and the fact that he had to take a defensive position when he got there with an ill-trained and exhausted army that was not prepared to do so.

(b) Why did Coca-Cola misinterpret their market research? Could any feedback have prevented the Tylenol or Apollo 13 situations?

Coca-Cola used both survey and focus group techniques before and during the development of New Coke. The different data gathering techniques provided seemingly contradictory findings. The surveys and taste tests were very positive and New Coke tested very well compared to old Coke and Pepsi. Focus groups revealed that there would be resistance and resentment to changes in Coke. Using the taste test data to support a change depended on the assumption that a difference in the taste of the soda would increase sales. The focus groups definitively undercut this assumption and indicated that taste was not the prime attraction of Coke. Unfortunately, Coca-Cola discounted the focus group findings. There are several explanations for this. The two most widely accepted explanations are that the taste test verified what they were planning to do anyway and that product tasting was a method that dominated consumer products marketing with focus groups being less accepted in this situation.

Johnson & Johnson and NASA did not have such feedback. J&J had feedback mechanisms in place to prevent or detect many product problems; however there was no monitoring once the product was distributed. They were able to track production runs through the distribution channel and identify inventory, but this was only useful after the fact.

NASA had a great number of sensors and redundancy; however the problem that occurred went un-noticed. Without getting into technical details, the relevant feedback device was inadequate. It did not accurately show the temperature within the oxygen tank that exploded. In fact, it was not until well after the crew was safely home that the cause of the explosion was identified and the inadequacy in feedback was recognized.

4 (a) He was effectively blind in the days leading up to the Battle of Hastings. Why did he march to it anyway?

Harold The Arrogant

Hubris--born of initial success and fostered by repeated victories of the highest levels.

Harold was clearly a man of action. He reacted very quickly and aggressively to the crises and opportunities he encountered. And, this had made him a winner, over and over again. Moreover, this extremely positive reinforcement caused him to feel that simple, aggressive action was the right thing to do, always. And, as shown in the case, he never varied from that course.

This is clearly an example of man filled with hubris. It is basically one of the founding tenets of it--this sticking to a simple plan that had worked well in the past--in this case quick, aggressive action--without regard to why it had worked at all. (Knoll, 2000)

Moreover, his hubris is evident in other areas throughout this case. He shows it in his dealing with Hardrada at Stamford Bridge, where he could have made peace and taken hostages. But, instead Harold offered the King of Norway only a grave large enough in which to bury himself. Undoubtedly, many men died needlessly because of this arrogant stance.

And, it is evident in how he handled himself at London before marching on to Hastings to meet William. He stayed there for only five days. He should have spent much more time than that, preparing the levies who had been waiting for him and allowing the rest of his army at York to catch up.

(b) NASA was blind regarding Apollo 13's accident, why did they act so quickly?

Despite having many feedback devices and considerable information regarding the spacecraft, they did not know what happened and did not necessarily have the information that they needed. They did know that resources were depleted and the capabilities of the spacecraft severely compromised. It was necessary to take immediate action because the astronauts and spacecraft continued to consume resources such as air, water and electricity. Knowledge of the cause of the problem or the exact damage was not possible, but it wasn't necessary to know either. What were available were estimates and measurements of the current resources and capabilities of the men and ship, and they were able to use knowledge to formulate different solutions and test them on the ground when possible.

5 (a) Did Harold have to attack William as quickly as he did?

It is true that William was causing trouble in the south. But, to any level-headed observer, it was an obvious ploy to draw Harold down as quickly as possible. William was in no position to wage a long war in hostile, unfamiliar territory, especially as winter would soon arrive. Nor did he have the forces necessary to invade London with Harold sitting there. So, William needed Harold to come to him, and quickly

In addition, with such a quick and decisive victory over the Norwegians, the overall situation had changed for Harold. He no longer had two dangerous enemies--just one. Moreover, he was fortunate enough to know that one remaining foe, a man he had fought beside on the continent two years earlier when he had promised to back that man's move for the English throne. He knew the man's tactics, and he knew the capabilities of the Norman forces William commanded.

Also, William had his back to the sea. And, his small force could do some, but not a lot of damage.

Moreover, there was every likelihood that a great many of his troops would succumb to disease, given enough time. Disease was so common in armies until the 20th century that a certain number of losses were calculated due it alone in the planning of any campaign.

(b) Did Coca-Cola have to introduce New Coke when they did?

No, there was no pressing need for it. It is true that the competitive landscape was changing and that competition in the soft-drink industry was increasing, however there was not sufficient cause to justify such a large change. Even if the problems were big enough to warrant significant changes, New Coke was probably not the 'solution' to any problem that they were having.

6 (a) Why should Harold not have pressed so hard to get to Hastings?

The Clouded Lens

Clearly, Harold was in the better position, and he could make war on his own terms. For the first time that year, there was no need for Harold to act quickly. Time was actually on his side. And, Harold should have known this, should have acted differently based on this. But, he played right into William's hands. As usual, he wanted to take the fight to his enemy.

So, he foolishly pressed south as soon as possible, hoping to seize the initiative, just as he had done so many times before when he felt like he was experiencing time pressure (Tetlow, pg. 128). But, as we have seen, he had no time pressure; he was simply acting out of habit.

And worse still: 1) his approach was observed by William, 2) when he got to the field, more than half of his army was not there for the start of the battle, and 3) those that were there, were exhausted.

These three things are exactly not what he wanted. There was no hope of his 'shock' plan being implemented let alone working.

But, the king did not absorb this dire feedback he was getting live at the battlefield. And, as we shall see in the next section, he did not even act properly and decisively in the face of impending defeat.

He had come too far, too fast, too arrogantly. And, to make matters worse, he did not understand what he was seeing when he got there.

So, because of this character flaw, this hubris within him, he was viewing the feedback, if he was seeing it at all, both before and during the battle, through a clouded lens.

He could not possibly have evaluated it properly.

(b) Why should Coca-Cola have not committed so fully to New Coke?

This is a good question for a class discussion there are a number of l good answers. Among the potential answers--it wasn't worth the risk, the contradictory market research should have stopped them, there were other ways to introduce New Coke besides replacing Coca-Cola, and it could have been introduced in only certain markets, and so on. The different answers all reveal different sets of faulty assumptions or flawed reasoning on the part of Coca-Cola.

7 (a)--The battle did not go as planned. Why didn't the English make adjustments?

Harold The Inflexible

So, the battle began in a manner Harold did not want--he was surprised, he was forced to defend, and his men were physically exhausted. But, he did nothing about this.

Moreover, at one point he was actually winning. His exhausted men had held their ground against several attacks. And, the failed charges of the Norman knights were having a terrible effect on their army's morale. Many units began to retreat; some of the less disciplined ones even routed. But again, he still did nothing.

Eventually, his men took matters into their own hands, charging after the fleeing Normans three times. And, even though each time they were slaughtered, he still did nothing to adapt to the steadily worsening situation.

Harold was clearly inflexible during the Hastings crisis. His inaction is practically the very definition of inflexibility

And, failure, sometimes catastrophic failure, will occur when a leader cannot think on his feet and adjust his previously successful tactics and strategies in the face of negative, real-time feedback. Harold showed us that. In fact, he experienced the worst of all possible outcomes. He was killed. Though, perhaps worse still, the English who relied on his leadership were devastated, their lives changed forever.

Strangely, Harold seems to have shown an ability to think sensibly outside or just after a crisis. For example, he did not allow his men to take booty from the dead at York. And, he granted them only a brief celebration the evening that he won at Stamford Bridge. For, it seems that he knew that he would have to mop up what remained of the Norwegian forces the next morning and then head south again, to London, in order to prepare for William.

But, as soon as he heard of William's landing, that sensibility went out the window. He marched off again quickly to do battle with his enemy.

Maybe it was ego. Maybe his previous successes in these types of life and death matters had created a powerful habit within him of quick, aggressive action. One can almost see Harold chomping at the bit during those five days he spent in London before the Battle at Hastings.

But, whatever its root cause, Harold's inflexibility and steadfast hold on previously successful tactics in the face of the negative realities he was experiencing was a fatal flaw.

(b) The Apollo 13 mission did not go as planned. What adjustments did NASA make or fail to make?

They had to make a great many changes, from rescheduling operational personnel on the ground to physically fabricating parts in the spacecraft. The answers that the students give will show how they frame the 'problem'. Subsequent discussion can bring out the notion that the adjustments needed to be made by an organization are not just those necessary for implementing the solution, but those involved in identifying the problems and formulating the solutions as well.

8 (a) What should Harold have done once the battle was joined? Why would that have worked?

Had Harold been hearing the feedback, he would not have stuck to his simple plan, now clearly a failing course of action. In fact, even with his initial improper evaluation, he could have been successful had he simply been flexible on the field.

There were two courses he could have navigated in order to take advantage of the situation. He could have taken stern control of his men and stood-fast, giving them a much-needed rest. Then, he could have left the field, mostly intact, to fight another day. He still had the advantage of time over William.

Or alternatively, he could have charged the Normans with whatever portion of his army had made it to the field at the point of the Norman confusion and smashed into them. Then, he could have pursued the routed enemy at his leisure.

Either course correction in mid-crisis would have won him the day, or at the very least put him in a very strong position to do so later.

But, the king stood transfixed, because things had changed beyond what his simple plan could deal with. And, his inflexibility cost him and the English people everything.

(b) What did NASA and Johnson & Johnson do once the crisis was recognized? Did these actions work?

This question is similar to several of the previous in as there are several correct answers and which ones are given reveals the biases of the students. Students tend to concentrate on the concrete actions taken--removing Tylenol from the shelves, moving the astronauts into the LEM. The actions taken by NASA and J&J worked, but it is important to recognize that the desired result was not to solve the poisoning or repair the exploded tank, but to stop panic and bring the astronauts home. It is important to emphasize the necessity of flexibility while reacting. The situations require correctly framing the problem and considering behavior outside of standard operating procedures. Obviously NASA had to change the mission from landing on the moon to returning the astronauts safely to Earth, but what was the driving force behind of Gene Krantz's now famous declaration "Failure is not an option"? He provided psychological support to the Mission Control crew and gave them permission to explore all possible solutions.

The fact was that Tylenol capsules were being tampered with and people were being poisoned, but what were the problems that J&J's was solving? If they accepted that the poisonings were few and very local and it was unlikely that others would be affected, they could have kept selling Tylenol as they had before the poisonings. What would have happened? Instead they reframed the problem as one of trust and emotions, which resulted in removing Tylenol from the shelves.

CONCLUSION

A crisis is an unstable time or state of affairs in which there is the strong possibility of an undesirable outcome (Darling, 1994). The Battle of Hastings was certainly that for the English. The failure of their leader to properly handle the crisis not only cost him his own life, but it literally changed the way of life of 5 million people, forever.

William would bring law and order, an iron hand, and feudalism to a people who had here-to-for been relatively independent and free. In fact, the change was so devastating for them that historical records show widespread English emigration into other countries in the late 1060's and throughout the 1070's. Those who could leave did leave. And, those who stayed behind were forced to become subtenants on what had been previously their own lands (Wood, 1987).

The Keys:

And, it all occurred, because Harold was unable to and/or did not

1) set up an adequate feedback mechanism,

2) probe his environment,

3) keep his eyes clear and open,

4) evaluate the real-time feedback he was receiving,

5) act quickly and decisively based on the feed back to

6) adapt to what was happening around him.

So, like Harold in the fall of 1066AD, you can be certain that crises will come to your doorstep, and that they will evolve during their course. Things won't go the way you expect or want. And, no amount of planning will help you get past that fact. So, when that happens to you, be sure you have the ability to read the feedback and adapt to the situation, as appropriate.

In a word, Harold was inflexible.

Don't be like Harold.

REFERENCES

Barton, L. (2001a). The Crisis Primer. Chapter 1 of Crisis in Organizations II. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Barton, L. (2001b). Recognizing a Crisis Situation. Chapter 2 of Crisis in Organizations II. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Darling, J.R. (1994). Crisis Management in International Business: Keys to Effective Decision Making. Leadership and Organizational Journal, 15(8), 3-8.

Knoll, M.J., L.A. Toombs & P. Wright (2000). Napoleon's Tragic March Home From Moscow: Lessons In Hubris. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 117-127.

Linklater, E. (1966). The Battle of Hastings. Chapter 15 of The Conquest of England. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.

Pearson, C.M. & J.A. Clair (1998). Reframing Crisis Management. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 59-76.

Tetlow, E. (1974). The Enigma of Hastings. NY, NY: St. Martins Press.

Wood, M. (1987). William the Conqueror. Chapter 9 of In Search Of The Dark Ages. NY, NY: Facts on File Publications.

Louis Scarpati, William Paterson University

Stephen C. Betts, William Paterson University