Rise and Fall of an Information Technology Outsourcing Program: a qualitative Analysis of a Troubled Corporate Initiative

Stretch assignments. 
In addition to being on brand, Icarus employees and executives 
were under pressure to deliver results and operate at a very fast pace. Furthermore, grandiose, 
elegant solutions were rewarded over more prudent and restrained approaches to leadership. This 
created “an endless round of what might be called probationary crucibles” (Jackall, 2010, p. 43), 
or what were known as “stretch assignments” at Icarus. Employees and executives vied with 
their peers to get their next big chance and demonstrate their readiness to progress to the next 
organizational level. One earned a stretch based on ability to achieve results and potential for 
advancement. 
Rising stars gained exposure to more senior executives through “stretch assignments,” 
and established leaders gained loyalty and power by dispensing these favors to their followers. 
Successfully delivering a stretch assignment aided managers’ ability to get acceptance and 
support from their peers to eventually promote their rising stars. Some managers worked with 
other leaders to get feedback on how well the employee performed during their stretch 
assignment, which could be damaging to the employee’s career should they struggle with the 
stretch. 
In many ways, providing employees with stretch assignments was how managers used 
their economic capital (i.e. their employees) to accomplish tasks. The added benefit was the 
manager could remain somewhat insulated from political harm should the employee fail. But if 
the employee succeeded, the manager increased personal capital through the loyalty owed by the 
employee or mentee toward their patron. Employees and executives who continued to 
demonstrate potential for advancement received progressively larger stretch assignments 
throughout their moral careers. Each stretch was viewed as a rite of passage to gain the relevant 
experiences to be accepted at the next layer of leadership.

---

67