Corporate Culture, Leadership, Power, And Motivation Affect Thomas ' Level Of Managerial Hubris?

1002 Words Oct 12th, 2016 5 Pages
1. How did corporate culture, leadership, power, and motivation affect Thomas’ level of managerial hubris?
The corporate culture, leadership and power at Farrow‘s Bank were questionable. The corporate culture can be described as substandard. The leadership employed few employees to take care of trial balances on a monthly basis. Major roles were carried out in family seclusion. The management and leadership allowed the family members to take control o major activities such as drawing of the yearly statements of the financial position and control of books of account. These were privately controlled by George Hart and later Fredrick Hart. The management was less accountable to the shareholders in their bank. Besides, the internal supervision had several deficiencies. Farrow had the authority to run the bank according to what he saw as fit. the leadership did not question or take keen look on the matters of finance in the bank. As a result, some employees such as the Managing Director, William Walter was allowed to act in a powerful role, despite the fact that he was not well experienced.
The corporate culture was also poor in that the leadership did not advocate for value delivery, honesty and fair appointments. In fact, the appointments to the board o directors were based on intimacy and friendship as confessed by F. C Janvrin who was a close ally to Farrow. To worsen the condition, the board had never discussed any matter relating to the bank’s assets. Moreover, Farrow…

Related Documents