gh 1981. These costs had been increasing since 1979, as the American economy once again headed into recession.
Simply because the current state of labor costs at Cleveland Twist Drill was largely a manifestation of recession in the broader economy does not mean that Bartlett should have ignored these costs. Neither, however, does this fact justify the blunderbuss leadership approach practiced by Bartlett. An analysis of wage rates prepared for Bartlett revealed both that industry wage rates in Cleveland were higher than those in other metropolitan areas, and that the wage rates at Cleveland Twist Drill were higher than those of competitor firms located in the Cleveland metropolitan area. Obviously, labor costs were a problem that required attention at the company. What was not required was the approach taken to the issue by Bartlett.
Bartlett also identifed declining market share as a problem at Cleveland Twist Drill. In fact, however, the company's market shares in the four major markets in which it competed had remained remarkably stable over the preceding five-year period. Bartlett's contention that Cleveland Twist Drill should move into new product markets was not wrongheaded. What was wrongheaded was his approach to the problem; an approach that essentially disrupted to functioning of the company without introducing anything positive.
Bartlett also dersired to change the strategic focus of
...