Ever since Robert Eaton became
the CEO, he collaborated and communicated with the workers that worked under
him. He didn’t delay in sharing his strategies and plans with the topic
executives before taking the advice of Bob Lutz. He avoided making decision that
would result in negative impacts by taking opinions and using them to plan for
the future. Both of them made sure that the staff being hired was right and
Eaton employer a participative style for making sure that new workers got the
gist of just how operations were carried out at Chrysler (Connor and Pokora 2012).
Furthermore, Eaton seemed to
listen to almost every person working in the organization which included
assembly-line workers, suppliers, and executives for determining just how to
assist the firm in succeeding. He also promoted the workers at the company to
communicate and interact with each other. The atmosphere that both Lutz and
Eaton had created, enveloped the whole organization. Eaton seemed to make sure
that every employee was involved with other in a communicative way. This was
the approach that he adopted to lead the company to success.
What major functions were missing?
Eaton focused a lot on ensuring
that every worker in the company was properly communicating with the other and
exchanging views. Eaton himself always asked Lutz along with other members
about the plans before implementing them. However, he didn’t focus on telling
and demonstrating just how the right step could be taken. He didn’t assist the
members of organization in a practical way. Even though exchanging views
important, it is also important to show the right direction and explain just
how a task can be completed. This approach helps the employees in preventing
mistakes and meet the objectives. Eaton wanted to prevent taking decisions that
could result in loss for the organization. That is why, he communicated his
plants with workers but he never got practical and help any programs to help
his workers in the field (MacLennan 2017).
What key behaviors were missing?
The very first key behavior that
was collaboration with the workers that was quite weak. Eaton didn’t focus on
helping his workers and showing them just how the tasks could be completed in a
more effective way. Secondly, he didn’t set any performance indicators that
could explain just how well the workers were operating and if the objectives of
the organization were near or not. This didn’t give any direction to the
workers (Joo, Sushko and McLean 2012).
Robert Eaton could have been a
better coach if he had focused more on the performance of workers and explain
the right way of carrying out tasks. Instead of focusing only on communication,
he should have also concentrated on the evaluation of workers and how they were
working to meet the goals of the company. He should have monitored the progress
of workers as well (McNamara, et al. 2014).
References of Robert Eaton Case
Study
Connor, Mary, and Julia Pokora. 2012. Coaching and
mentoring at work: Developing effective practice: Developing effective
practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Joo,
Baek-Kyoo Brian, Jerilynn S. Sushko, and Gary N. McLean. 2012. "Multiple
faces of coaching: Manager-as-coach, executive coaching, and formal
mentoring." Organization Development Journal 30 (1).
MacLennan,
Nigel. 2017. Coaching and mentoring. Routledge.
McNamara,
Martin S., Gerard M. Fealy, Mary Casey, Tom O'connor, Declan Patton, Louise
Doyle, and Christina Quinlan. 2014. "Mentoring, coaching and action
learning: interventions in a national clinical leadership development
programme." Journal of Clinical Nursing 23 (17-18): 2533-2541.