Characters in the case study

1. Liana-
She is the main character in the study around whom the whole story
revolves. Co-founder of Musiophile 5yrs ago worked in Orchis as a
leader of the consumer’s tech e-Reader development team.

2. Gary-
He was the old director or leader of the previous team in which liana
was a part of.

3. Suz-
He is the one to whom liana married after leaving orchis.

4. Tom Anthony-
He is the CEO of orchis.

5. Ethan and Colin-

They are liana’s kids or referred to as ‘the twins’.

6. Chelsea and Peter-

They were Gary’s right and left hand. They were also referred to as ‘The
Devil’s advocates’. And former peers of Liana.

1|Page
 ABOUT THE CASE
‘THE FLIGHT OF THE BOOMERANG EMPLOYEES’

Why Liana left the first company [Orchis] in which she worked?
Five years before, she’d worked at Orchis. She was leading the
consumer tech company’s e-reader development team and was
working on The Vanda Project. She’d put in 80 hours a week but the
Vanda hadn’t made it into the stores. Soon afterward, Liana had left
the company.
Her reasons for quitting were:

 Senior managers had lost faith in the product.

 They had misjudged the customer.
 They had not given the project enough money and time to
succeed.

Liana’s life after leaving Orchis:

After leaving Orchis, she had married Suz and moved to California,
and adopted twins, Ethan and Colin.
She had cofounded Musiophile, an internet-streaming radio station.
Though it wasn’t all that profitable yet, it was very popular.

The chance of going back to Orchis:

The CEO of Orchis called her and asked her to consider coming back
to Orchis as their director of product development and help them to
launch the next wave of devices.
2|Page
Suz’s views on Liana going back to Orchis:
When Liana told Suzabout the call, he was skeptical. He was worried
about their twins, Ethan and Colin. He thought what if Orchis
wouldn’t provide her flexible working hours and expects her to give
200 %

Liana’s meeting with Gary:

Gary told her about what made him to leave the company. He told her
that Orchis is struggling to launch game changers and it’s a systemic
problem. They say they want to try new things but never put money
behind anything ‘unproven.’
Their most recent project on a solar-powered cell phone was
dismissed as the company said it wasn’t feasible and they had spent
enough time on it.
He said her if she joins Orchis then it will be a hard time getting
things done there as they don’t provide enough time and money for
the projects to succeed.

3|Page
 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Liana, a product developer-turned-entrepreneur, is invited back to her
old company Orchis to take over her former boss's job. The CEO of
Orchis called her and asked her to consider coming back to Orchis as
their director of product development and help them to launch the
next wave of devices.
She's excited about the prospect of trying out some new ideas there,
and the CEO says he's eager to see what she can do, but Liana
wonders how receptive to change he and the rest of the executive
committee will really be when projects are on the line-and whether
her reputation as someone who'd previously quit will harm her ability
to lead her old team.
The main issueof the case is: Should Liana go back to her old
company Orchis?

4|Page
 ALTERNATIVES OF THE CASE ISSUES
There are two possible alternatives for this case:
1. Liana should go back to her old company.
2. Liana shouldn’t go back to her old company.

ALTERNATIVE 1: She should go back to her old company.

Following are the reasons in support of this alternative:

 Networks take time to build, and Liana already has hers in place.
This is a great advantage if she goes back to Orchis. She can use
her old contacts to gather information, promote her agenda, and
make new connections.

 She is concerned that who knew her only by the reputation—as

the woman who’d failed and then quit the job could work against
her. But the truth is that the CEO called her in because of her
reputation—as someone who championed an idea that in
hindsight is being recognized as a great one. And new allies
(such as the chief marketing officer) may come easier with a
strong reputation preceding her.

 Though plenty has changed at Orchis since she left, she

understands the culture and the politics of the company. She has
experienced the pitfalls firsthand, and she needs to think
strategically about how to avoid them.

For instance, since she already knows that Chelsea and Peter like
to air concerns about new products in front of the executive
committee, she might think of ways to get them on board before
5|Page
 the presentations take place. A new person coming in would have
to learn this the hard way.

 Liana's familiarity with the company, comb with the start-up

experience and fresh perspective she's acquired since she left,
will give her the tools she needs to succeed in the role.

 The CEO of Orchis called her and asked her to consider coming
back to Orchis as their director of product development and help
them to launch the next wave of devices. She will get a better
pay as she is receiving a higher position now in the company
which was previously alloted to Gary.

 Her co-founded start-up Musiophile is popular but not that

profitable yet. Musiophile is essentially waiting to be bought,
and any dreams of independent wealth had long ago faded (she
is the founding creative director, not a partner). She is ready to
get to work on some of her new ideas. But the thinking of
launching another start-up, at this point in her life, daunts her.
So going back to Orchis is a great opportunity for her.

6|Page
ALTERNATIVE 2: She shouldn’t go back to her old company.
Following are the reasons in support of this alternative:

 Liana should conduct a thoughtful, proactive job search rather

than jumping at this opportunity.
Liana needs to stop being reactive and instead become the project
manager of her own job change process. She should begin by
clarifying her own values and priorities regarding both work
content and work/life choices while getting a better sense of her
strengths.

 Next, she should generate more alternatives rather than deciding

between her current, no longer motivating position and Tom’s
proposal.
Decades of research show that the best jobs (in terms of
satisfaction, success, stability, and income) are the result of
conducting proactive, thoughtful searches—not jumping at
whatever lands in one’s lap.

 If the company requires too much involvement of Liana in the

orgaisation, it can lead to not providing the proper attention to
her kids.At Musiophile, at least she have the flexibility to work
from home when her husband is on a shift and that’s because
she make the rules. The CEO of Orchis have allowed her to
work flexibly now but when a project’s on the line she may not
be provided with this opportunity.

 Liana should not take this job. Aside from the question of
work/life balance, the opportunity is full of red flags, and her
chances of success are slim.

7|Page
  It’s not clear at all that Liana has the level of competence
required to be a successful director of product development at
Orchis. Her track record at the company at a lower level, leading
just one project certainly shows her ability to identify market
potential. However, even with the support of her organization
(which she didn’t manage to get for the Vanda Project), would
she be able to navigate challenges such as reaching agreements
with publishers and launching the final product?

 Her success at Musiophile confirms her creative skills, but in a

completely different environment. In the proposed role at Orchis,
her own creativity would be less important than leading her team.
And her leadership experience seems to be minimal. Her ability
to influence a skeptical audience is limited at best. That’s been
the case, at least, with the Orchis crowd.

 Additionally, money and vindication are poor reasons for taking

any position. A job should have the right content so that the work
itself becomes the main motivator.

 Liana thinks that she would be dealing with a constant stream of

new problems to solve at Orchis but in reality, most of her work
would entail managing up, something neither she nor Gary has
been able to do well.

 A job should also involve the right people. At Orchis, Liana

would be leading a questionable team and working for a boss
who himself has not shown great managerial skills. Tom kept the
ineffective director, Gary, in his job too long and then bad-
mouthed him to Liana—two flawed judgment calls.

8|Page
  Finally, a job should open up valuable opportunities to acquire
new credentials and skills. That’s not likely to happen for Liana
at Orchis, as this is the company that has systematically failed in
its attempts to launch game-changing products.

9|Page