Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Navigating Turbulent Waters
The Leadership Journey of Maersk
By group 16
Daniel Carlsbæk Møller (20222402)
Jacob Thygesen Hald (20224311)
Jeppe Elmegård Andersen (20224365)
Lasse Tetangco Dalsgard Jensen (20225264)
Mads Boelskift Jensen (20222410)
Vinujan Jan Sivapatham (20213261)
Supervisor: Shoonchol Shin
Number of characters: 34.108
1
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Table of content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Theoretical concepts .................................................................................................................. 5
Decision making styles........................................................................................................................ 5
Types of profile values and Typology of organisational values ......................................................... 6
The Evolution of Power and Nine Influential Tactics......................................................................... 6
The leadership Grid and Four leadership styles .................................................................................. 8
Introduction to the case .............................................................................................................. 9
Leaders at A.P. Møller-Maersk ........................................................................................................... 9
Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 10
Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller ................................................................................................................ 10
Jess Søderberg ................................................................................................................................... 13
Niels Smedegaard .............................................................................................................................. 16
Discussion & Conclusion......................................................................................................... 19
References ................................................................................................................................ 22
2
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Abstract
In this project, we are exploring the management and leadership styles of three generations of
CEOs of Maersk, starting with M. Møller and ending with N. Smedegaard, with a firm look
on how these individuals differentiate from each other with an organizational perspective. By
applying a wide variety of theoretical models on the organisation of Maersk, we aim to target
the analysis on the organizational behavior of the CEOs with emphasis on their ways of
leading the company and the direction of the decision styles of each individual. Our findings
suggest that the management style of Maersk is characterized by a mindset of domination
with authoritarian power, while being a top elite in the field with high productivity and
growth as a main priority. Along with the shift in CEOs there is also a transition in the
handling of power, to a more delegated and team-based organisation. However, the main
focus is still productivity. Furthermore, we found that the management style was not without
challenges as the decentralized structure gave communication gaps as well as differences
between CEO vision and company vision resulting in the organisation looking beyond its
boarders for a new CEO to improve the management.
3
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Introduction
An organisation is defined by the leader. Different circumstances call for different
management styles. Each management style comes with a range of both pros and cons which
will affect the position and culture of the organisation.
From 1965 until 2016, Maersk has only had three different CEOs. Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller
set the foundation of the company’s culture and the general management style of the
business. His philosophy was built on a top-down hierarchy with hard-working and
committed employees who all have Maersk in their heart.
After the resignment of Mc-Kinney Møller in 1993, the philosophy was still able to stay in
the organisation with the employment of Jess Søderberg who had an economical and
analytical approach and at the time had been in the organisation for 11 years which is why he
was selected as the new CEO. Søderberg got off to a flying start increasing the worth of the
organisation by 1.6 billion. kr. each month. However, he caused a new problem within the
organisation: the lack of man-management which was a skill that Søderberg did not possess.
After 14 years in charge, this forced Maersk to let Søderberg go and look for a new CEO
elsewhere with experience as a leader of a major organisation. The result was the
employment of the former Carlsberg CEO, Nils Smedegaard Andersen, who immediately
implemented radical changes to the culture of Maersk. This led to a more open dialogue
throughout the hierarchy, and even though Smedegaard was very demanding, it also created
more freedom for the employees.
The common factor between the three CEOs is that all of them came with both positives and
negatives, which has led us to this question that we will be answering throughout this article:
“How does the three CEO differ in management styles, and which factors causes the
differences?”
4
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Theoretical concepts
Table 1. Theoretical comparison of management styles.
Decision making styles
Table 1 presents various organizational theories that provide insights into understanding
different management styles. The first is the work on decision making styles. (Sinding,
Kreitner & Kinicki 2018 306-308) Decision making styles can be broadly classified into four
categories - analytical, conceptual, directive, and behavioural. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Decision making styles
These styles differ in terms of their approach to decision making, tolerance for ambiguity,
and value orientation.
1. Analytical: Characterised by a logical and systematic approach to decision making.
Decisions are made with low tolerance for risk and focus on facts rather than intuition
or personal values.
2. Conceptual: Characterized by creativity and the ability to see the big picture.
Conceptual decisions are innovative and explore new ideas. Therefore, conceptual is
less concerned with details and prefers to focus on the long-term implications.
5
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
3. Directive: This style is characterized by a practical and efficient approach to
decisions. Directive are action-oriented and make decisions quickly. Directive
decisions are task-oriented and focused on achieving results.
4. Behavioural: Focus on interpersonal relationships and the feelings of others. They are
empathetic, value collaboration and consensus-building. They are concerned with
how decisions impact people and prioritize maintaining harmony.
Types of profile values and Typology of organisational values
The organisational culture profile (OCP) was developed to link people and culture. The
model comes from 54 statements of values which are sorted into nine categories. With this
model, it is possible to identify the culture type of a manager of an organisation and what
values that are attached to the specific culture type. (Sinding, Kreitner & Kinicki 2018 293)
Figure 2. Typology of organisational values
Typology of organisational values has four superior types of an organisation, and it is built
upon the power structure of the organisation and the organisational reward norms.
The four types of organisational values are elite, leadership, meritocratic and collegial (Figure
2). The difference between them are the composition of the reward norms and power
structure. (Sinding, Kreitner & Kinicki 2018 293)
The Evolution of Power and Nine Influential Tactics
The Evolution of Power is developed by R. Kreitner and A. Kinicki. The model refers to
changes in the way power is practiced within societies and organisations. Power is
traditionally controlled by a smaller group of people who exercises it through domination and
control.
6
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
The model suggest that over time, societies and organisations have evolved towards more
decentralised and democratic models of power, where power is devolved and shared among a
wider group of people making the organisational hierarchy more flatlined.
Figure 3. The evolution of power
The model describes four stages of this evolution of power:
•
Domination:
Power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or groups, who use force,
coerce, or intimidate others in order to control them.
•
Consultation:
Power is still concentrated at the top, but leaders begin to seek input and advice from
others in the organisation.
•
Participation:
Power is shared more evenly throughout the organisation, and decision-making
becomes more decentralised.
•
Delegation:
Power is distributed throughout the organisation, with authority and decision-making
responsibilities being delegated to lower levels of the hierarchy. (Sinding, Kreitner &
Kinicki 2018 293)
The Nine Influence Tactics model characterises tactics as either soft or hard. The soft tactics
are those that rely on relationship-building and persuasion rather than coercion or force. The
five soft tactics are:
•
•
Rational persuasion:
The use of logical arguments and evidence to persuade others.
Inspirational appeals:
The use of emotions, values, and beliefs to inspire others.
7
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
•
•
•
Consultation:
The involvement of others in the decision-making process to gain their support.
Ingratiation:
The use of flattery, praise, and other forms of positive attention to win others over.
Personal appeals:
The use of personal relationships or connections to influence others.
The hard tactics of the Nine Influence Tactics model are those that rely on pressure, coercion,
or force to influence others. The 4 hard tactics being:
•
•
•
•
Exchange:
The use of bargaining or trading to get others to comply.
Coalition tactics:
The use of group support or alliances to gain influence.
Pressure tactics:
The use of threats, demands, or coercion to get others to comply.
Legitimating tactics:
The use of authority, rules, or policies to gain influence.
The Nine Influence Tactics model is used to analyse how individuals use these tactics to
influence others in various situations. (Sinding, Kreitner & Kinicki 2018 293)
The leadership grid and Four leadership styles
Presented in Figure 4, the leadership Grid is developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. It
is made of a 9x9 matrix with 81 squares with an x-axis and a y-axis representing “concern for
production” and “concern for people”. According to the model, the most effective leadership
style is having both high concern for production and high concern for people, which then
leads to the highest productivity, satisfaction, creativity and health.
Figure 4. Leadership grid
8
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
The top left corner is viewed as a country club with too much focus on people and not the
work. The bottom right corner is task-oriented management. The corner at (0,0) is viewed as
improvised management where you try to avoid both the people and your job tasks. (Sinding,
Kreitner & Kinicki 2018 293)
Shown in Figure 5, Four leadership styles is used to analyse leader behaviour by looking at
two factors: structure and consideration.
Figure 5. Four leadership styles
Consideration is the concern for different group members and their needs, while initiating
structure is the behaviour of a leader wanting to maximise output. All four types are capable
of influencing others. Therefore, one could argue that the best style is influenced by many
different factors. (Sinding, Kreitner & Kinicki 2018 293)
Introduction to the case
Leaders at A.P. Møller-Maersk
We have selected to work with the case “Leaders at A.P. Møller-Maersk”, which is about the
three leaders who ran the company from 1965-2016. The first of the three was Mærsk McKinney Møller, who was known as a very conservative and formal person. He was a strict
leader but was seen as a fair man as well. When his time had come, it wasn’t clear who would
take over after him. It became Jess Søderberg. Søderberg made sure that the company grew,
by buying up other companies. By the co-workers, he was seen as tough and cynical in his
effort to grow the company. 14 years later, it was time again, and this time it had to be
someone from outside the company. Nils Smedegaard was the choice, and since he was from
outside of Maersk, he was not afraid to make some changes. The case focuses on the three
CEOs’ different management and decision-making styles, as well as how they have dealt with
problems and growth.
9
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Analysis
In this section, we will use the different theoretical concepts that we covered in the previous
section of the case to help get a deeper understanding of how they differ in style and what
made them either succeed or fail.
Table 2. Comparison of the CEOs
Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller
Decision making style
Based on the decision-making approach, M. Møller is classified as a directive decisionmaker. Directive decision-makers are practical, efficient, and action-oriented. This aligns
with M. Møller's leadership, as he was known for being decisive and taking bold actions in
the interests of the company.
He was also known for being highly focused on achieving results and holding employees
accountable for their performance. M. Møller describing an ideal manager: “It should be
people who have achieved something” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79-88) and “they should be
willing, when required to work beyond normal working hours.” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012
79). This is consistent with the task-oriented nature of directive decision-makers.
M. Møller's decision-making style was primarily directive, but elements of conceptual style is
also present. As M. Møller was innovative and willing to take risks when it came to
developing and expanding the company’s business. Overall, M. Møller's leadership style and
decision-making approach was primarily directive, however, he demonstrates elements of
conceptual decision-making style, too.
10
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Types of value
M. Møller possesses a lot of values, as seen in the case. These values are the core foundation
of what he stands for, and therefore what he tried to implement into Maersk. According to the
model, Types of Profile Values, M. Møller would be placed in two categories: outcomeoriented and stable, which is culture type 3 and 4. Throughout the case, it is visible that he is
result and performance-based in the way he acts as a CEO keeping pressure on the employees
constantly. The others describe how he is rule-oriented and predictable in the way he
manages his employees with the same stable and precise way.
Typology of organisational values
According to the model, Typology of organisational values, M. Møller stands between
leadership and elite, as he certainly exercised centralised power. He had few senior
executives by his side and wanted to take all the decisions by himself. “… Then you will not
have to worry about whether you made the right decision or not.” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012
79) he said. M. Møller thrives when he is the one making decisions alone.
The reward norms he executed determines whether he is elite or leadership, and at this point
he is in between egalitarian and equitable. He appreciated when people were committed to
the organisation and wanted people to have the Maersk white star instead of a heart. He did
not like teamwork, which is contradictory, since it is an endorsed value for a CEO who is
leadership.
Therefore, he fits in between elite and leadership, due to the centralised power and employees
ought to be committed and affiliated but without accelerating teamwork.
Evolution of power
M. Møller's leadership style during his function as CEO of A.P. Møller-Maersk was
characterized by a centralized decision-making process with a strict hierarchy. This approach
is typical of the domination style of leadership, which emphasizes control, power and
authority, which is proven throughout the case.
Control: “He would ignore traditional lines of command, and bypass managers and
supervisors to get a detailed overview of what was happening at all levels of the company.”.
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79)
Power: “M. Møller also insisted on approving all decisions made”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft
2012 79)
11
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Authority: “It was required for employees to work with their doors open. It was a part of the
“disciplining.”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79)
M. Møller had, as a tough and demanding leader, a hands-on approach to managing the
company. He made quick and decisive decisions and maintained tight control over the
company's operations. Therefore, he matches the category of domination in the model,
Evolution of Power.
Nine Influential Tactics
M. Møller was a principled man with high demands for both himself and his employees.
To avoid unnecessary breaks, the employees were required to work with open doors. “He
liked people to run fast. It wasn’t enough that you did things fast; it also had to be visible that
you were working fast.”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79). These characteristics state that M.
Møller was a leader using both pressure tactics and legitimating tactics as his way to
influence his employees.
Furthermore, he was a strict and conservative leader with clear values and rules to follow. In
1971, his own description of what skills a manager should possess included “to work beyond
normal working hours.”, being “decent, honest and competent.” and being “able to lead,
inspire and motivate, and above all be loyal.” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) which indicates
that M. Møller also wanted to influence by having inspirational appeal.
Leadership grid
The leadership grid was designed to show the most efficient way of handling things, which is
having both high concern for people and high concern for production. Surprisingly, M.
Møller did not find himself in that corner of the model. Instead, he would be placed in the
bottom right corner, which is very task oriented. This means that he had very high concern
for production and low concern for people. M. Møller had very high demands for his
employees’ results and performance. As mentioned earlier, he wanted his employees to have
the Maersk white star instead of a heart, implying that his concern for production was way
above his concern for the employees.
12
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Four leadership types
M. Møller's leadership style is described as structural. He emphasises on structuring the
employees' tasks. The statement, “Then you will not have to worry about whether you made a
misjudgement.” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) shows that everything was structured in such
a way that M. Møller had a great influence on every decision made.
M. Møller also liked his employees to work hard and fast, as mentioned: ”It wasn't enough
that you did things fast; it also had to be visible that you were working fast.” (Sinding,
Bøllingtoft 2012 79).
These quotes combined shows a strict leader, who seems to have low consideration for his
employees. Although he was tough and harsh with his employees, he was also described as
being fair. In the model, Four leadership styles, M. Møller matches with number 3: High
Structure-Low consideration" due to the evidence above.
Jess Søderberg
Decision making style
J. Søderberg is classified as an analytical and directive decision maker.
J. Søderberg was a respected man. He was an accurate, tough and sometimes even a brutal
leader. “He proved on several occasions that he had the resolve, power and cynicism that
were needed to get things done.”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) which tells us that he was a
directive decision maker with an action-oriented approach.
With a master's degree in finance, J. Søderberg was also known for his strategic overview and
calculating approach. He was not a creative person, but he got things done with his low
tolerance for risk and focus on facts which clarifies that he was an analytical and directive
decision maker. “His management wasn’t based on objectives or fear, but on numbers.”.
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79)
Types of value
J. Søderberg was very outcome oriented. He placed big demands on his co-workers and is
also described as being cynical, which suggests that he could have shown unethical
behaviour.
J. Søderberg was also described as being an introverted "numbers guy", which - since he is
very precise and focused on facts - shows that he is detail-oriented.
13
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
An interesting point is that J. Søderberg as a manager could be seen as being innovative,
since he is trying to get rid of the top-down hierarchy within Maersk and wants his employees
to be more innovative (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79). Even though J. Søderberg is mostly
analytical and cynical according to his employees, he still wants his employees to be creative
and innovative.
Typology of organisational values
When looking at the traits of the four superior types, J. Søderberg belongs to the elite. When
looking at the endorsed values of authority and performance, J. Søderberg was described as
an “Accurate, tough, and brutal boss”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) which tells us that J.
Søderberg had the authority to enforce obedience from his employees through respect. When
looking at the endorsed value of performance, he focused primarily on the numbers on the
bottom line and getting things done. He was described as “a tough boss that demanded a lot
from people.”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79)
In comparison to M. Møller and Nils Smedegaard, Jess Søderberg was a more cynical CEO.
J. Søderberg discouraged the values, teamwork and participation. He did not focus on
building relationships within the firm. He was only focused on the numbers that Maersk was
generating.
Evolution of power
When looking at Evolution of power, J. Søderberg moves from domination to consultation.
At the start of J. Søderberg’s reign in Maersk, there was a form of total domination with a
top-down management. He had full authority and was described as an “accurate, tough, and
brutal boss”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79). He focused solely on performance through the
numbers that Maersk was generating. J. Søderberg always got the job done and expected the
same form of commitment from his employees.
Throughout the years, J. Søderberg changed the traditional structure of Maersk. “The board
began to work to renew the entire concept of leadership in the company”. (Sinding,
Bøllingtoft 2012 79). J. Søderberg started opening the firm for shareholders as well as
diverting the management style from a top-down hierarchy to a more modern form of open
management. At this point, J. Søderberg transitioned from being a domination type of leader
to a consultation type of leader.
14
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Nine influential tactics
J. Søderberg’s “management wasn't based on objectives or fear, but on numbers. (Sinding,
Bøllingtoft 2012 79) which indicates that his influential tactic was rational persuasion since
he would bring undeniable evidence from the numbers calculated to persuade his employees.
The co-workers knew that if they wanted to gain certain results, they were ought to do what
the rational numbers told them.
Another influence tactic that J. Søderberg used during his time as CEO would be the
legitimating tactics, since he used his authority to gain respect, or perhaps to be feared.
"Among the staff and other managers in the group, Jess Søderberg was reportedly more
respected than loved" (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) suggesting that he would get his
influence through authority. One could also say that J. Søderberg used pressure to get his
employees to do certain tasks.
Leadership grid
J. Søderberg is a leader who is primarily focused on achieving high production and results
with no focus on supporting his team members. “Among the staff and other managers in the
group, Jess Søderberg was reportedly more respected than loved”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft
2012 79) making him fit into the authority-compliance management style, which is
characterized by a low concern for people and a high concern for production. He also tends to
prioritize task accomplishment over the needs and well-being of others. As stated, he was
known as an ”accurate, tough and sometimes brutal boss.” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79)
Leaders such as J. Søderberg who fit into the authority-compliance management style are
often seen as autocratic or directive, and they may use their position of authority to make
decisions. However, “The managers in the company were introduced to a more modern and
open management style”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) indicating that J. Søderberg later on
changed the management style to be more open.
Four leadership types
In terms of leadership style, J. Søderberg can be described as high structure, low
consideration. “His management wasn’t based on objectives or fear, but on numbers.”.
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) and he was more respected then loved, which could be a result
of his high consideration for numbers.
15
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
He expected a lot from his employees and knew what they had to do to maximize the output
at Maersk. He had a clear set of goals and values but didn’t offer guidance for his employees.
He was very cynical and knew what had to be done, and how his employees needed to do
things.
The only factor he cared about was numbers and he did not fancy the wants and needs of his
employees. “known as the accurate, tough and sometimes brutal boss” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft
2012 79), if an employee did not put up the numbers, he expected, he was not afraid to let the
person go, regardless of who the person was.
Nils Smedegaard
Decision making style
In term of decision making style, N. Smedegaard has factors from almost all types and is
therefore placed in the middle.
He is directive, because he is effective and not afraid of taking action. “He doesn’t see any
scared crows … He isn’t afraid of deciding, and he gets away with an incredible amount.”
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79).
On the other hand, he also has factors from conceptual and behavioural. He consulted his
supervisors before a big decision and liked those opinions shared, and he took a wide
perspective in terms of problem solving. “Decisions are discussed, analysed and
strategically though through in the given situation” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79).
Smedegaard shows factors from all types of decision making styles, but as stated “the final
decision is always made by Smedegaard himself “ (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) indicating
that he is in fact a directive decision maker.
Types of values
When looking at different types of value, N. Smedegaard was first of all outcome-oriented.
He always had a clear focus on numbers and getting things done with a reputation of being a
“man of results”. “During the financial crisis at Mærsk, Smedegaard fired thousands of
people. He implemented cost reductions for more than two billion dollars after his arrival.”
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79).
16
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
On top of that, he is also a very team-oriented leader, who rarely decides without discussing it
with others in the company first, which tells us that he is collaborative and does not make
decisions solely on his own.
Furthermore, during his time at Carlsberg, he “moved focus from production to customers
and markets”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) as well as “prioritised communication – both
internally and externally” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79), which shows that he also values
service through costumer focus, empowerment of employees, proactiveness and engagement.
Typology of organisational values
N. Smedegaard prioritized values such as fairness, achievement and self-direction. He placed
big demands on the employees, who in return gained more freedom. Therefore, he partly fits
into meritocratic in the Typology of organizational values. He valued talent development and
provided opportunities for employees to demonstrate their abilities and advance based on
their performance.
N. Smedegaard also fits into the region of leadership values, as he emphasized the importance
of corporate citizenship and social responsibility. “It means that now more information is
given to the public, even when the news is less than favorable” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012
79).
Other factors makes him fit in the leadership compartment. He prioritized the development
and mentoring of his employees, he empowered them to achieve their goals, and he promoted
a collaborative culture including discussing decisions with employees and creating internal
competition by “highlighting the successes and achievements of the individual divisions.”
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79).
Evolution of power
N. Smedegaard’s way of managing could be seen as consultation moving towards influence
sharing. When he was brought in, the chairman said: “we have the desire to bring in an
outside candidate, and the advantage of this is that it will create dynamic and new thinking”
(Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79). This new way of thinking led to changes in the organization.
He was described as a strong team player by employees, and it is said that he rarely took a big
decision before discussing it with others within the organisation first.
17
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
The evolution of power is moving towards a more flatlined organisation hierarchy. Every
time Maersk appointed a new CEO, more people were let in on the decision making.
Nine influential tactics
N. Smedegaard was known as a hardworking CEO with a simple but powerful philosophy.
Some of the tactics that he used were consultation, pressure, and coalition. As mentioned in
the case, there is rarely any time that N. Smedegaard takes a decision on his own. He always
consults with some of the others in the company before taking a big decision.
When it comes to pressure, N. Smedegaard did not hesitate. Everyone at the firm knew that
there was a lot of pressure to get good numbers and make the company accelerate to absolute
excellence. This is one of the essential things that define N. Smedegaard as a CEO.
On top of that, he also used the coalition tactic. In his time at Carlsberg, he moved focus
towards the market and customers instead of the production and prioritised good
communication.
Leadership grid
According to the leadership grip, Smedegaard is some in between most effective behavior
and the bottom right corner. He had a high concern for production and that the organization
was doing well. He put a lot of pressure on his employees and expected high performance
from them.
In contrast to his predecessors, N. Smedegaard had a higher concern for his employees. As
mentioned, he expected high performance from his employees, but they had a lot of freedom
and that shows trust and concern “Nils Smedegaard Andersen big demands on his employees,
who on the other hand also have a great deal of freedom” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79).
Another way Smedegaard shows concern is in his decision making. He wanted to take his
supervisor's advice and opinions in mind before making big decisions.
Although he showed concern for his employees, he is still in the lower end of the model. If
his employees performed well and showed commitment, he would trust them, but if they did
not, he was not afraid to let them go. “He is the Nordic champion in the 200-meter dash in
freestyle layoffs”. (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79)
18
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
Four leadership types
N. Smedegaard had big demands for his employees while at the same time offering them a
great deal of freedom. He was known as being a strong team player, rarely making decisions
without discussing with others in the company first. This shows that he is a leader with high
consideration of the needs and wants of others.
Furthermore, he had a reputation of being a “man of results”. He had a clear focus on
numbers and getting things done, and even though he discussed decisions with others, the
final decision was always made by himself. This tells that he, as the previous two, was a
structural leader. What was most important to him was always the figures on the bottom line.
He “never said: “we don’t usually do this”. If something doesn’t benefit the overall business,
it must be changed” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79), suggesting that he was not always highly
structural as he was always prepared for change. Therefore, N. Smedegaard leadership style
is considered as high consideration, medium structure.
Discussion & Conclusion
Maersk had pressure from outside the firm, from different shareholders and customers.
“Mærsk had over the years been faced with demands to show greater transparency in
relation to society and shareholders” (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79) indicating a certain
pressure from the environment forcing Maersk to change their traditional management style
to a more open and modern management. It was a big decision when “the company was
introduced to a more modern and open management style, which was planned to bring
Mærsk out of 100 years of top-down management“ (Sinding, Bøllingtoft 2012 79). While
Maersk was influenced to changing their management style externally, they were also
beginning to change the management style internally.
Maersk wanted to change their management style when they appointed J. Søderberg, because
of pressure from the external environment. However, this showed to be more challenging
than expected.
Since M. Møller was CEO for such a long time, his way of leading was ingrained in the
organisation and made it difficult to change. This could explain why J. Søderberg had a
difficult time implementing his way of leading, which was an innovative style.
19
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
It was easier for N. Smedegaard to implement his ideas because of the transition that J.
Søderberg made. Smedegaard became CEO approximately 42 years after M. Møller’s
appointment, and therefore, the organisation had evolved and become more adjusted to a
different style of management.
It shows that it takes time for an organisation to change the management style. It is not
enough to replace a CEO. The organisation as a whole needs to be prepared for a change, and
that takes time. This could be the explanation for why N. Smedegaard could make the
changes he made; the organisation was ready for change when he was appointed as CEO.
In conclusion, the three CEOs have different leadership styles, but N. Smedegaard differs
more than the other two. M. Møller had a straightforward way of leading the organisation,
and J. Søderberg suffered from this at the beginning of his time as CEO. M. Møller was also
on the board of directors after he resigned as CEO, which meant that he was still influencing
the organisation making it difficult for J. Søderberg to implement his ideas and form of
leadership.
That said, J. Søderberg made some changes in the last years of his time as CEO, and he
opened the organisation to the world. His idea was a more innovative environment in which
the employees had free reins in terms of their tasks. However, despite his ambition for an
organisation with these values, this was not the reality. In reality, J. Søderberg created a
cynical and top-down environment.
N. Smedegaard differed from the two other CEOs by being more cooperative and working
with his supervisors, which gave the employees more freedom. He partly removed the
hierarchy in relation to the other CEOs.
The organisational values differ between the CEO’ where M. Møller, as described, was
outcome-oriented and stable, with an eye on precision and performance-based results. These
types of values were continued by J. Søderberg. Søderberg was mostly outcome-oriented, but
most of his time as a CEO. M. Møller was in his shadow still having a say in the decisions.
Subsequently, N. Smedegaard continued a lot of the same values but introduced the teamoriented value to the organisation. The different values of each CEO can correlate to each of
their decision making styles, which shows a shift in the decision making style from M.
Møller’s task and technical concerns to N. Smedegaard’s people and social concerns.
20
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
This transition also shows the tendency to a shift in the evolution of power moving up the
steps and nearing the participation stage in the leadership of N. Smedegaard. Eventually
indicating a deviation in the organisational power structure going from elite to a more
leadership-based culture with a few steps in meritocratic power.
All management styles prioritised high structure, however, there is an evolution moving from
low consideration to a medium-high consideration when looking at the timeline of the reign
of the three CEOs. This natural evolution comes from the pressure of organisational evolution
of the outside world.
21
Aalborg Universitet, Erhvervsøkonomi (HA), 2. Semester
References
Sinding, K. & Bøllingtoft, A. 2012, Cases on Management, Leadership and Organisations,
Samfundslitteratur.
Sinding, K., Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. 2018, Organisational behaviour, sixth edition edn,
McGraw Hill Education, London.
22