Was Robert Eaton a Good Coach? Robert Eaton was CEO and chairman of Chrysler fro
ID: 331459 • Letter: W
Question
Was Robert Eaton a Good Coach?
Robert Eaton was CEO and chairman of Chrysler from 1993 to
1998, replacing Lee Iacocca who retired after serving in this
capacity since 1978. Eaton then served as cochairman of the
newly merged DaimlerChrysler organization from 1998 to 2000.
With 362,100 employees, DaimlerChrysler achieved revenues
of EUR 136.4 billion in 2003. DaimlerChrysler’s passenger car
brands include Maybach, Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler, Jeep,
Dodge, and Smart. Commercial vehicle brands include
Mercedes-Benz, Freightliner, Sterling, Western Star, and Setra.
From the beginning of his tenure as CEO, Eaton communicated
with the people under him. He immediately shared
his plans for the future with his top four executives and then
took the advice of his colleague, Bob Lutz, to look around the
company before making any hasty decisions concerning the
state of affairs at Chrysler. Eaton and Lutz ascertained that
Chrysler was employing the right staff and that they did not
need to hire new people; they just had to lead them in a different
manner, that is, in a more participative style.
Eaton listened to everyone in the organization, including
executives, suppliers, and assembly-line workers, to
determine how to help the company succeed. Eaton also
encouraged the employees at Chrysler to talk with one
another. The atmosphere of collaboration and open-door
communication between Eaton and Lutz (the two men sat
across the hall from one another and never closed their doors)
permeated the entire organization. Eaton and Lutz’s walkaround
management style indicated to employees that they
were committed to and engaged in the organization.
Furthermore, Eaton and Lutz held meetings with their executive
team on a regular basis to exchange ideas and information
from all areas of the organization.
Eaton even reorganized the manner in which Chrysler
designed cars based on a study, previously disregarded by
Iacocca, that indicated that Chrysler needed to be more
flexible and its executives needed to be in constant communication
with the product design team. One employee was
quoted as saying, “Bob Eaton does not shoot the messenger
when he hears something he doesn’t like or understand. He
knows that not every idea is right. But Bob is off-the-wall
himself. . . . He’ll say something, and we’ll tell him that it’s a
crazy idea. . . . He may not change his mind in the end, but
he’ll spend the time explaining to you what is behind
his thought processes. Do you know what kind of confidence
that inspires?” This type of open communication at the top
proved extremely successful, as summed up by one
designer: “It’s a system that recognizes talent early and
rewards it, and that creates a sense of enthusiasm for your
work, and a sense of mission.”
Another program that Eaton describes as empowering
employees at Chrysler includes requiring all employees,
including executives, to participate in the process of building
a new vehicle. Eaton explains that this shows all of the employees
in the plant that executives are concerned about the
proper functioning of new cars, and it gives executives the
opportunity to understand and solve problems at the factory
level. Eaton states, “When we’re done with our discussions,
these guys know where we want to go and how we want to
get there, and they go back and put the action plans together
to do that. This goes for every single thing we do.” He concludes,
“Clearly at a company there has to be a shared
vision, but we try to teach people to be a leader in their own
area, to know where the company wants to go, to know how
that affects their area, to benchmark the best in the world,
and then set goals and programs to go after it. We also
encourage people not only to go after the business plan
objectives but to have stretch goals. And a stretch goal by
definition is a fifty-percent increase . . . . If we go after fifty
percent, something dramatic has to happen. You have to go
outside of the box.”
Based on the above description, please evaluate Bob
Eaton’s coaching skills using the accompanying table. If a
certain coaching behavior or function is missing, please
provide recommendations about what he could have done
more effectively.
Based on Case Study 9-1: Was Robert Eaton a Good Coach on pages 256-257 in the textbook and the Major Functions and Key Behaviors tables on page 257, evaluate Eaton’s coaching skills. In your response address the following elements:
What major functions were missing?
What key behaviors were missing?
Based on your evaluation, provide specific recommendations on how he could have been a more effective coach.
the text book is Performance Management (3rd Edition) - Herman Aguinis and the case study is as mentioned above
Explanation / Answer
Robert Eoton could be considered as a good coach because he was quiet successful in paving way for his organization to attain the desired success. He was always consultative with respect to his plan and would always discuss with key stakeholders before taking any decision. This would lead to greater engagement and participation of the key stakeholders in the decision making. This not only helped him to abstain from taking hasty decision but also helped him implement bottom-up approach towards decision making. He had also devised a very planned approach towards communication and hence, implemented a very open & free environment of communication. Moreover, he also believed in shared vision ideology, where he would seek active engagement of his employees to provides various techniques to attain the corporate goal. This would instill enthusiasm and greater motivation in the employees.
In spite of being a good coach, there some functions and behaviors missing in the way Robert approached his day to day activity in the organization. We can surely agree with the fact that engaging employees in decision making gave good dividends to the organization but it created a very flawed decision making structure which is bound to fail in situations where a quick decision would be required. In addition to this, Robert's involvement in every single activity can be perceived to be a greater proportion of micro managing technique. And this too much of micro management can permanently impair the hierarchy structure established at the organization.
In my opinion, Robert should use a mixed approach towards communication and decision making, where some long term decisions would be thoroughly discussed and the short term decisions would be undertaken by the top management. In addition to this, rather than keeping an open door policy, he should deploy a systematic communication medium which would be effective and adherent to the hierarchy structure. In addition to this, he should also devise framework in which he receives information about the operations of the organization without being deeply involved in each activity. This would reduce his micro management tendency to a great extent.
Please Like & Provide your reviews in comments. :-)
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.