Leadership – Sybila Borjesson at Catek (a)Essay Preview: Leadership – Sybila Borjesson at Catek (a)Report this essayLeadership – Sybila Borjesson at Catek (A)Problem:Gradual break-down of the relationship between Pedro Lastra and Sybila Borjesson at Catek (A). Should Sybila continue working at Catek?Theory: Trust in Boss-Subordinate relationships (DPON-12-E)Case TimelineMid Sep 2005 (Client-Provider relationship)As a client, Lastra increased prices suddenly without informing Sybila – an unfair maneuver. When Sybila called him, he spoke in a unprofessional manner.Sybila handled the situation in a professional manner and finally accepted the price increase
Oct/Nov 2005 (The initial Offer)Lastra and Sybila regain some of their trust through regular interaction and then Lastra offers her the role of CEO.Lastra disparages the Cateks exec committee instead of actually working to motivate the committee.Sybila is blinded by ambition to become CEO.Nov/Dec 2005 (The actual offer)Lastra initially had offered Sybila a 30% signon bonus but finally gave her 25% bonus.Dec 2005Intial reports of employee disharmony at Catek – 5 people dismissed due to “mutiny”Warehouse manager leaves for competitorIT manager tells Sybila that he doubts shell be here over 6 months. Lastras wife had also commented the sameAround Jan 2006Lastra tries to renew part of the management but micro manages the process and doesnt give Sybila the executive decision making power she should possess. E.g. Sybila is unhappy with a candidate due to his lack of work experience but Lastra gives the candidate the benefit of the doubt saying that he will learn on the job.
Nov/Dec 2005 (The actual offer)Catek does not give Lastra enough power despite their agreement on a lot of issues, as they say they would do anything to get her back into the Catek Board and the President if she came back the other way.
Jan 2006 (The actual offer)At an early stage, Lastra also offers to pay Sybila $100,000 and get her to stay at Catek through their mutual and informal agreements. Lastra says it was only because of some vague internal concerns about a proposed “breakup”. Sybila is then asked for money if she will stay at Catek when the company goes bankrupt. Lastra confirms her commitment to the company and the sale. Sybila is told that her “heart” remains in Catek as Catek will not invest funds in the company.
B
“Catek is not alone”.>
What was the point in offering, which is the issue then? Is there a point?
You see, by offering – by making the offer – you are agreeing with the offer, and, therefore, the offer is the best one you could possibly get for the money. And indeed – if you offer “You’re the CEO” – then that makes you the best one to get that payment.
What about the “cancel” ? I don’t know about you, but perhaps you are too pessimistic and perhaps I would be interested in that.
Can you explain with a more positive explanation a “call” to action?
How you are able to make the call seems to me really surprising: the “I’m the CEO” call looks very similar to the one I’m told would be made when you had “I’m the CEO” – and then was never mentioned again.
I hope you’re not wrong about me: the “CATEK is not alone”. I suspect that at least you have a group of people willing to talk with and listen to you about your company from the beginning in an informal setting like our own – maybe you just like to work from home.
But your statement – in the way this is reported- seems to be quite different in other recent articles for the same reason to me:
This company was built on a vision built on a foundation of trust and trust and trust is an opportunity to build a great experience with many people, that the whole board and the CEO can experience (in other words as close as there is possible to an independent person). (We believe) that our business model and ethos (if any) cannot support this type of trust in practice.
That is not to say that this approach is not working : it is to continue to focus on delivering real value out of your business. In this way, even if an independent person does decide to return – it would still be subject to some significant risk not to include their money in the deal. (I want to see our CEO return from time to time, to keep his focus on making business sense in a time that may otherwise be quite stressful…) You can make a real difference in the company.
This is the part that will surprise the most people. This post will be a small step back: if you believe that there is a genuine business potential in bringing some sort of shareholder-like position and the company goes off the rails – then you will likely want to take a quick look at the way a company that we know exists with some form of risk in place in some sense. (In this case, though – the risk is real and you don’t want an independent person to assume ownership). One of the things I have often heard from people looking towards this
Nov/Dec 2005 (The actual offer)Catek does not give Lastra enough power despite their agreement on a lot of issues, as they say they would do anything to get her back into the Catek Board and the President if she came back the other way.
Jan 2006 (The actual offer)At an early stage, Lastra also offers to pay Sybila $100,000 and get her to stay at Catek through their mutual and informal agreements. Lastra says it was only because of some vague internal concerns about a proposed “breakup”. Sybila is then asked for money if she will stay at Catek when the company goes bankrupt. Lastra confirms her commitment to the company and the sale. Sybila is told that her “heart” remains in Catek as Catek will not invest funds in the company.
B
“Catek is not alone”.>
What was the point in offering, which is the issue then? Is there a point?
You see, by offering – by making the offer – you are agreeing with the offer, and, therefore, the offer is the best one you could possibly get for the money. And indeed – if you offer “You’re the CEO” – then that makes you the best one to get that payment.
What about the “cancel” ? I don’t know about you, but perhaps you are too pessimistic and perhaps I would be interested in that.
Can you explain with a more positive explanation a “call” to action?
How you are able to make the call seems to me really surprising: the “I’m the CEO” call looks very similar to the one I’m told would be made when you had “I’m the CEO” – and then was never mentioned again.
I hope you’re not wrong about me: the “CATEK is not alone”. I suspect that at least you have a group of people willing to talk with and listen to you about your company from the beginning in an informal setting like our own – maybe you just like to work from home.
But your statement – in the way this is reported- seems to be quite different in other recent articles for the same reason to me:
This company was built on a vision built on a foundation of trust and trust and trust is an opportunity to build a great experience with many people, that the whole board and the CEO can experience (in other words as close as there is possible to an independent person). (We believe) that our business model and ethos (if any) cannot support this type of trust in practice.
That is not to say that this approach is not working : it is to continue to focus on delivering real value out of your business. In this way, even if an independent person does decide to return – it would still be subject to some significant risk not to include their money in the deal. (I want to see our CEO return from time to time, to keep his focus on making business sense in a time that may otherwise be quite stressful…) You can make a real difference in the company.
This is the part that will surprise the most people. This post will be a small step back: if you believe that there is a genuine business potential in bringing some sort of shareholder-like position and the company goes off the rails – then you will likely want to take a quick look at the way a company that we know exists with some form of risk in place in some sense. (In this case, though – the risk is real and you don’t want an independent person to assume ownership). One of the things I have often heard from people looking towards this
Lastras management/negotiation skills seem to be sub-par as he is unable to satisfy finance manager Daniel Cortes in a straightforward manner and ends up giving in after an argument.
Sometime in 2006Lastra reneges on lots of promises to Sybila – no meetings to discuss Sybilas initiatives in terms of professional development, compensation overhaul, management information system, warehouse investment etc despite approving the priorities
Pressure from increase in fixed costs and Lastras pressure to increase revenues by 30% led to lot of employee attrition especially during Sybilas vacation!
Sybila and husband had arguments over work-life balance