Robert Eaton Case Study

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 & 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, & 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).

ReferencesRobert Eaton Case Study

Connor, M., & Pokora, J. (2012). Coaching and mentoring at work: Developing effective practice: Developing effective practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Joo, B.-K. B., Sushko, J. S., & McLean, G. N. (2012). Multiple faces of coaching: Manager-as-coach, executive coaching, and formal mentoring. Organization Development Journal, 30(1).

MacLennan, N. (2017). Coaching and mentoring. Routledge.

McNamara, M. S., Fealy, G. M., Casey, M., O'connor, T., Patton, D., Doyle, L., & Quinlan, C. (2014). Mentoring, coaching and action learning: interventions in a national clinical leadership development programme. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(17-18), 2533-2541.