Leading Team Effectiveness Under Sustained Disruption

Note: This is a simplified version of an existing case study to enable faster skimming of content. For a full narrative, please read the original here.

Executive Summary

Led a global team through a period of sudden operational disruption triggered by COVID by diagnosing performance challenges as capacity and workflow issues rather than individual shortcomings. Reset expectations, reduced friction, and preserved execution quality, retention, and leadership development in a regulated environment.

Context

Company: Elekta
Industry: Global medical devices
Function: Education & Training
Role: Manager, Learning Infrastructure & Governance
Scope: Global team responsible for mission-critical enablement and support

When COVID abruptly altered how work was performed, long-standing assumptions about capacity, coordination, and productivity no longer held. The team operated in a regulated environment where accuracy and reliability remained non-negotiable, despite rapidly changing constraints and no established playbook for sustained performance under these conditions.

The Leadership Problem

This was not a motivation or capability issue.

The real challenge was capacity distortion caused by sudden change:

  • Work patterns shifted overnight

  • Context switching and coordination overhead increased sharply

  • Cognitive load rose while margin for error narrowed

  • Existing productivity benchmarks no longer reflected reality

The leadership question became:

How do you preserve effectiveness, accountability, and trust when the operating model changes faster than expectations can be recalibrated?

Leadership Objectives

  • Maintain execution quality in a regulated environment

  • Preserve trust and psychological safety

  • Prevent burnout and avoidable attrition

  • Reset expectations without lowering standards

  • Create clarity around real capacity constraints

Leadership Approach

1. Reframed Performance as a System Signal

Rather than interpreting changes in output as individual underperformance, I treated them as indicators of system friction.

  • Shifted performance discussions from blame to diagnosis

  • Explicitly separated effort from output

  • Created space for honest reporting without penalty

2. Used Data to Identify Friction, Not Monitor People

  • Introduced lightweight time tracking to surface workflow bottlenecks

  • Analyzed aggregated patterns to understand context switching and rework

  • Avoided individual-level surveillance or punitive interpretation

3. Reduced Cognitive and Process Overhead

  • Paused or removed low-value work that consumed attention without impact

  • Simplified workflows where regulatory requirements allowed

  • Reduced unnecessary procedural burden that amplified fatigue

4. Reset Expectations Explicitly and Transparently

  • Acknowledged that pre-COVID productivity baselines no longer reflected reality

  • Reset expectations in a way that preserved accountability without denial

  • Communicated consistently to prevent silent pressure and erosion of trust

Results

  • Sustained approximately 80% of prior productivity during extended disruption

  • Maintained quality and reliability in a regulated environment

  • Achieved zero voluntary attrition

  • Developed leadership depth, with all direct reports later promoted into management roles

Strategic Impact

  • Team performance stabilized despite ongoing uncertainty

  • Trust and transparency increased across the group

  • Institutional knowledge and leadership continuity were preserved

  • The organization retained a resilient, high-functioning team

Previous
Previous

Product-Led SEO Architecture for Scalable Revenue Growth

Next
Next

Enterprise LMS Replacement & Governance Design