Case Study Of The 1920 Farrow's Bank Failure

730 Words2 Pages

In the case study of the 1920 Farrow’s Bank Failure gave the readers an understanding of how CEO Thomas Farrow fell victim to managerial hubris. This was reflected most clearly in the fact that he increasingly came to view himself as being somehow above the laws of a wider community. The Farrow’s bank predicament confirms that the probability of hubris materializing is sparked when external control mechanisms are either lacking or inefficient. The amateurish set-up of the Bank also suggests that the likelihood of hubris syndrome developing was based upon the leadership that is was following.
Corporation culture, leadership, power, and motivation affected Thomas’ level of managerial hubris by increasing it. The forces of power, and leadership
In Farrow’s case, the downfall of the bank was solely his fault due to his problem with accepting that he was not always right, and not considering the results and outcomes on each side of the issue. In simpler more modern terms, Mr. Farrow was a “know-it-all” and in his own eyes, he was completely incapable of being wrong at any moment and from any aspect. This impacted the overall business environment because he only wanted to do things in the way that he felt they should be done, he did not want opinions or outlooks from anybody else because the only right way was his way. This selfishness ultimately caused the bank to fail.
The pressures associated with ethical decision making at the bank includes the fear of facing off with Mr. Farrow himself, which was probably very intimidating because he really wasn’t open to any decision or opinion that did not belong to him. Pressures of being simply afraid to speak up when something wasn’t right is also there, because there is a big possibility of rejection. Mr. Farrow seems like he was a force to be reckoned with and that alone can cause pressure when it came down to ethical decision

Open Document