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 …show more content…
Consequently, the business environment is also affected negatively. It should be noted that managerial hubris impairs moral or ethical decision making. The managers end up ignoring serious external factors in a business which drives moral awareness in a business. Managerial hubris is a source of unethical behavior among employees. Generally, managerial hubris hampers a clean business environment. This is because the business environment is surrounded by dishonest, less efficient and poorly experienced employees. Managerial hubris creates an environment that does not encourage team work and efficiency. Collaborations among the employees are rare. The business environment becomes unfavorable and could lead to poor …show more content…
The bank was registered as a ‘credit Bank”. As a result, book keeping standards placed on the Bank was not as strict as in joint stock banks. Legally, it also meant that the bank directors did not have to hire for external audits. Secondly, the manager, Mr. Thomas Farrow isolated himself from the rest of the staff. This means he made most of the company decisions alone. The access to ledgers was left solely on the hands of George Hart and Fredrick Hart. This barred decision making related to finances, since the drawing up of the major financial statements was done in private and in secluded places. The leaders were also inexperienced. For instance, Crotch showed little interest in finances. Despite the fact that he was the managing Director in the bank, he had never looked at audit reports. The supervisory leaders were also careless. They did not show a valuable concern over the years of operation in the
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 …show more content…
Consequently, the business environment is also affected negatively. It should be noted that managerial hubris impairs moral or ethical decision making. The managers end up ignoring serious external factors in a business which drives moral awareness in a business. Managerial hubris is a source of unethical behavior among employees. Generally, managerial hubris hampers a clean business environment. This is because the business environment is surrounded by dishonest, less efficient and poorly experienced employees. Managerial hubris creates an environment that does not encourage team work and efficiency. Collaborations among the employees are rare. The business environment becomes unfavorable and could lead to poor …show more content…
The bank was registered as a ‘credit Bank”. As a result, book keeping standards placed on the Bank was not as strict as in joint stock banks. Legally, it also meant that the bank directors did not have to hire for external audits. Secondly, the manager, Mr. Thomas Farrow isolated himself from the rest of the staff. This means he made most of the company decisions alone. The access to ledgers was left solely on the hands of George Hart and Fredrick Hart. This barred decision making related to finances, since the drawing up of the major financial statements was done in private and in secluded places. The leaders were also inexperienced. For instance, Crotch showed little interest in finances. Despite the fact that he was the managing Director in the bank, he had never looked at audit reports. The supervisory leaders were also careless. They did not show a valuable concern over the years of operation in the