Individual Writing Assignment: Erik Peterson at Biometra (A)

Scientific Materials (SciMat), the global material science research and innovation company, strategically set
out to diversify the organization due to rising competition and slowing market growth in consumer and
industrial segments. Based on the strengths of the organization and opportunities (high margins, attractive
growth rate, and reliance on engineering innovation), SciMat acquired five companies with innovative
vascular technologies including Boston-based Biometra. Biometra is a small company focused primarily on
catheters and largely dependent on their flagship product: a plastic composite catheter that is thinner, more
flexible, and easier to maneuver than existing catheters. After missing the original launch on February 1,
the Biometra team is poised again with the challenge of delivery on April 1.
Since being acquired, the Biometra team has experienced significant change and experienced this change
under substantial pressure from SciMat relative to product launch. Most significantly and recently impacted
by the unexpected departure of the Biometra leadership team and supporting staff, Erik Peterson was
promoted to acting general manager (GM) responsible for Biometra’s overall operations. From a macro
perspective it can be inferred that SciMat/Biometra’s leadership development model needs to be assessed
based on Erik’s level of preparation visible through the manifestation of his decision making. Throughout
the case, SciMat and Biometra’s leadership teams are faced with key decision-making challenges shaping
the culture, product launch and performance of the organization.
Raymond Smith, CEO of Bell Atlantic, suggests, “Leadership in the late 20th century is all about making
decisions in the midst of complexity.” A critical aspect of decision making is prioritization and investing in
the optimal decision. As Linda Hill states in “Being the Boss”, “management is responsibility for the
performance of a group of people.” When Erik assumed the role of GM, he had focused the majority of his
career on his individual contributions and performance to deliver results. Drawing on his past experience,
Erik continually dives deep into details and is consumed by the product launch. While the launch is
important, it is the derivative of team collaboration. Throughout the case and exemplified by the relationship
between Peterson, Andrews and Miczek we find a collision of principles and the compound effect of
suboptimal decision making along with the realities of management. Erik does not prioritize the leadership
and development of the team as a unit as they work through the four initial phases of the team lifecycle.
Despite implementing meetings and promoting conversation, the organization has become segmented and
defined by “silos” of productivity and dysfunctional interpersonal relationships within, again represented in
the relationship between Burns and Wescott. By assessing the situation and identifying the root issue
versus the symptoms and incorporating a more strategic decision-making methodology not based on
intuition, it is suggested that Erik would have reprioritized effort and increased focus on building the team
dynamic likely leading to improved results.
Management is not just about solving existing problems. Leaders are charged with the responsibility of
adjusting the system to improve outcomes. In this situation Erik could be considered a “firefighter”, running
to the next issue without examining the system as a whole to make the right decisions. Erik is ineffectively
making the needed decisions compounded by his lack of knowledge of product launch and his bias
tendency. One example of this is the continual investment in the newly introduced Costa Rican
development company with continual delivery issues.
Decision making is critical in every situation and in every organization. In order to navigate complexity,
leaders must understand the concepts of sound decision making, pitfalls, and personal competencies. In
this case Erik Peterson was ill-prepared, unsupported and unable to transition as a leader. The growth of
leaders is the lifeblood of an organization and that which fosters future growth and performance. While
Biometra is the focus of attention, this case suggests that the organization is at greater risk with regards to
the development of leaders realized through inefficiency and inability to make rational decisions.