Evaluation bank surpassed his leadership title in Montreal.

Evaluation of Chuck’s Handling

     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.

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
100% plagiarism free
Sources and citations are provided


Get essay help

     Eldon’s directive 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 his
group.

     Preceding 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
advancements.

     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
lacked strength.

     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.

     Chuck started his plan of new products to generate
income and increase client relations in new markets. The approach would aid get
his team to a new level of banking.  It
was an innovative idea for a bank experiencing from technology lag Though this application
did not sync with the atmosphere and philosophy he walked into, eventually rendering
the strategy unresolved.

     Chuck’s initial error was not presenting
the strategy to his workers. Not once did he question himself if the plan was
beneficial to the employee makeup.  He
seldom took questions or concerns from his group members, and this led to worry
and opposition. It was observed that his group at no time spoke about any of
the new products lines. Nonetheless, Chuck persisted in promoting
implementation.

     To Chuck’s credit, he did not try to
establish training for them when it came to the innovative technology
criterion. This practice was designed to join the team under one mutual
goal.  Nonetheless, it seemed “too
little, too late.”  By placing the
strategy implementation first, the structure of the group dissipated.  Chuck was unsuccessful at handling
disagreements heading to a strategy derailment. 
It is doubtful if the strategy was implemented at all through the months
he was there; therefore, leading to the ‘standard’ quality evaluation from
Eldon.

     Chuck was not entirely unaware of the fact
that his team was splitting apart at the seams. 
He did have quality management vision by applying team building
practices.  The training was used to
increase organization and sales abilities. The exercise also familiarized the
workers to the use of technology in sales. Though, he thought that learning
altogether would signify they would work perfectly together and this would have
been better developed for strategy implementation instead of a team-building
exercise.  Chuck knew team building was a
problem yet as a leader he fell short. He was not a trainer for his team and
seldom managed disputes. Chuck was always more worried about how his actions
influenced his performance rather than analyzing the internal problems the team
encountered.

Should MacKinnon stay on and lead the group?
If he does, what should he do now?

    Chuck should stay on
as the leader of the group, but he must own up to his mistakes and generate an effective
action plan for his group.  In he
upcoming year, he could invite change within his team to apply his strategy.  His greatest management act must be to
confront Eldon and Margaret.  Chuck must
have clear direction from both bosses despite their individual internal
struggles. The three of the managers must admit that the strategy needs to be changed
to meet the demands of the group members. 
Chuck must admit that his leadership has been lacking and his management
approach has been completely goal motivated. 
Adjusting to the philosophy of the bank will help outline his actions to
develop the connection with his employees.

      With
a new plan beneficial to his geographically dispersed team, Chuck should
concentrate on internal and external leadership actions, and this will assist
to increase the group’s capability to get the work done.  They must rebuild amongst members.  As an alternative to emails, team members
should face their co-workers directly, and Chuck needs to be in attendance, in
doing so this will aid creating better working relationships between associates.

     Strategy implementation and makeup need to
be considered and entirely examined with the team members, and this would
permit for honest communication amongst the team and Chuck.  In preparing the new strategy, Chuck