For this assignment, read the case study, "The 1920 Farrow's Bank Failure: A Case of Managerial Hubris." This case is
located in the ABI/Inform Complete database found in the CSU Online Library (see reference below).
Hollow, M. (2014). The 1920 Farrow's bank failure: A case of managerial hubris? Journal of Management History, 20(2), 164-178.
Regulators evaluated Thomas Farrow as being inflicted by managerial hubris at the time of the bank's collapse in 1920.
With this scenario in mind, address the following questions, with thorough explanations and well-supported rationale.
1. How did corporate culture, leadership, power, and motivation affect Thomas' level of managerial hubris?
2. Relate managerial hubris to ethical decision making and the overall impact on the business environment.
3. Explain the pressures associated with ethical decision making at Farrow's Bank.
4. Do you think that if Farrow's Bank had a truly ethical business culture, the level of managerial hubris would have been decreased? Could this have affected the final outcome of Farrow's Bank? Explain your position.
Your response must be a minimum of three double-spaced pages. You are required to use at least one scholarly source
in your response. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying in-text citations, and be cited per APA guidelines.
In compliance with BrainMass rules this is not a hand in ready assignment but is only guidance.
Corporate culture, leadership, power, and motivation affected Thomas' level of managerial hubris. The culture of the bank was lax. The bank's board of directors and its senior management mainly Crotch and Hart showed irresponsible and neglectful attitude towards the day to day running of the bank. This neglect supported Thomas' level of managerial hubris. In addition, the leadership shown by Thomas supported his hubris. He was concerned with his self-image, a pronounced tendency to view the world in heavily moralistic and grandiose terms. He did not follow rules and regulations and was dethatched from reality (1). He covered up his losses through drawing up and publishing false balance sheets. He even refused to recognize that he had done anything wrong even though he had been charged and convicted. These were methods of preserving self image. The power vested in Thomas was very high. He had too much discretion. The power was enhanced because of narcissistic and ego-centric tendencies of Thomas. Also, the power of Thomas was increased because external control mechanism were either lacking or were inefficiently applied. Specifically, in this case Farrow's Bank was registered under the Friendly Societies Act of 1904 and was thus subject to far less strict auditing regulations than its competitors. Farrow was able to keep the scale of his fraudulent bookkeeping hidden for longer than would have been the case of other joint-stock ...
The response provides you a structured explanation of case study: The 1920 Farrow's Bank Failure: A Case of Managerial Hubris . It also gives you the relevant references.