Essay About Charge Of The Elmville Branch Office And Evaluation Of Chung

Discussion Questions: Karen Leary
MAN 6245 CASE WRITE UP AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONSB. Write-up and Discussion Questions: Karen LearyHow has Leary taken charge of the Elmville branch office?IG: Leary is a hand on the job type of manager, with an aggressive style and high motivation to take bigger leads within the company her performance was highly reviewed. She was careful to set personal goals that included having her branch performance at high level as well. Continually kept herself informed by her FCs, emphasizing on personal training, coaching and counseling to younger FCs, pushing employees to be the best they could. Since she took the management role for the branch, her biggest plan was to develop a team that would fit to the new culture she introduced. Leary made sure procedures and employees for the branch would not at any circumstance hinder growth, even if it meant to laid of people who had been working with the branch for over 6 years but showing only average performance. What is your evaluation of Chung’s performance?IG: Overall Chung’s performance was impressive. Leary felt he was distant and could not stablish a connection with her, but that was not significant to hurt his evaluation. He got high scores on his test, and as suggested, he did established contacts with top people Leary introduced him to. When asked to help with sales leads and other tasks he did not show willingness to work in teams and make very clear his position about working with a lower role in the company, even if part of training. Early he closed a big account that impressed Leary, but also flag some red lights; only he did not like the close attention Leary was paying to his account/client, but also would restrain communication with client to himself. Despise the big account he had, it was his only account. Not much effort was shown to prove he was after more clients, as if he trusted this account along would be sufficient. Additionally, he broke company protocol suggesting investments not authorized by company policy.  Chung’s initial planning and business approach training and developing the market given to him his performance was outstanding. However along the way his ego overcame his ability to pursue growth and he became blindsided to considering only his personal needs and neglecting the most valuables ones, the client’s and the branch’s there then, I would present my final evaluation as poor performance, despise relevant monetary results. If you were Leary, how would respond to Chung’s request for a private office? What factors would you consider? What specific actions would you take to improve Chung’s performance, as well as your working relationships with him?IG: Considering that at the time of Chung’s request for a private office, his performance was overall suggestively high, it was promising to the branch a good outcome if he continued to do so. I would consider his request and weight out the pros and cons, especially in regards to the impact of granting a private office to a fairly new employee, would be on the whole team and on the message perceived by Chung. As did Leary, I would have to “sleep on the idea” and get back to him another day. The first thing I would ponder upon would be his actions in accordance to what was requested of him as a team member and FC. Going on that line of thought it would be notable that his actions prioritized his own agenda, not only was he not a good team player – remember Leary often askes senior FC to mentor trainees and younger FC, it was most important to him to show authority and his position above other team members. At this point, I would decline his request, as there was no consistent evidence he deserved it. His attitudes not only were a risk to the balance of the cultural environment created, but also to company compliance. Closer communication and advice to make use of the company’s resources would improve his performance; nonetheless, that was done by Leary and did not work. If you were Leary’s regional director (her immediate supervisor), how would you evaluate her performance?