A. His mandates from Margaret and Eldon
Chuck acquired separate
mandates from of his superiors. The two terms recommended were vague, imprecise
and out of sync regarding the bank’s business paradigm.
was fixated merely on keeping things as they are. He offered little assurance
and direction to Chuck when he proposed the topic of a new plan. Eldon thought in promoting traditional
merchandises, but his attitude displayed a relatively non-committal position on
the subject matter. Eldon was mainly apprehensive that his group continued to
be happy. Margaret, she did offer Chuck
a clear mandate. She had confidence in
Chuck’s new plan and planned to execute it as soon as she could, no matter the
cost. Chuck, still concerned with his
group, did not reveal these facts to Margaret and instead talked about Eldon’s
interpretations. Each one of the bosses
made it quite understandable that any interfering with one another was
intolerable and not to have any reservations about it.
Chuck was without a
doubt set up not to succeed. Chuck tried
to promote Margaret’s directive, but he did not wholly comprehend the team’s
motives. He should have connected with
Eldon to deliberate his team building and what difficulties they have
previously encountered. Chuck appeared
more apprehensive with the new production method and Margaret’s support than
The people problems in the group
his title at Montreal Bank, Chuck retained a management position in Saudi
Arabia. His association contribution
with that team demonstrated to be unsuccessful.
His staff and managers were unpleasant, difficult and challenging. In the concise description as a supervisor,
Chuck had little dealings with his team and neglected to comprehend what
distinguished the Saudi Arabian business procedures from his American
principles. He stepped down from his
supervisory position placing the fault on the group. Chuck did not once doubt his management
approach. His incompetence attributes a
manager at the Saudi Arabia bank surpassed his leadership title in Montreal.
The Montreal group that Chuck supervised
naturally exhibited a traditional business approach. The team associates were
hesitant to consider a new strategy and were used to a specific manner of
performing business. Technology had an
insignificant impact when dealing with client interactions. Chuck was also responsible for a team that he
identified with to be ideal when they felt upset with the Patrick Kinnard
leaving. Patrick quit the Montreal group
for a position in NY. The workers that
Chuck managed were at present disorganized and hesitant to change. As a manager, Chuck neglected to identify
this vital characteristic. Chuck neglected to ask his team their fears, doubts,
their objectives or views before strategy execution. He presumed that his group should be led in
one path when they apparently were heading opposite ways.
Chuck’s new team involved a variety of
personalities. The first group was of
general friendly individuals opened to uncertainty and who worked
extraordinarily well. The next group
consisted of unpredictable behaviors who felt slighted due to disregarded
As a manager, Chuck seemed worried about
work performance. He indeed concentrated
on plan execution and not on his associates.
For instance, Chuck hardly recognized concerns for some of his tenured
workers. Two such cases are Neil, who was afraid of the technology
implementation and Glen and Detir, who argued over client relations. There were
more noticeable challenges within his team, yet he appeared only to acknowledge
Patrick Kinnard’s absences. Chuck also
exhibited a preference for Dale Cameron.
Finally, he never generated an environment for teamwork.
Chuck had an excellent strategy but was
unsuccessful in applying it due to his lack of understanding of the individuals
in his group. Just because something proved to be successful for him in his former
job did not indicate that it would succeed for him at the Bank of
Montreal. He certainly did not take the
time to collect information about each group member and merely used unconfirmed
assumptions. When he observed team dynamics, he was already influenced by who
the individuals were, much like assumptions towards Patrick and his dependency
on alcohol. That is a serious allegation
and one that should include not only Chuck but likewise Human Resources. Chuck
presumed each person had his motivation and mindset and his management style
In addition, Chuck never developed an
informal group head to advocate his approach.
He accepted his own burden. This played out at the disastrous Christmas
party and clarifies his irritation and frustrations regarding the team.