1. Introduction and summary

In our case study, Jim is an investment banker at one of the local banks in the city. Jim has just been recently promoted to represent another company which plans to invest in agriculture but requires a loan to start this business. The main work for Jim is to offer guidance to this company and also represent a report of the same to the management in the bank. Jim notes that his former workmate, Jake, works for these company which he has been sent to value its property worth in order to determine how much to be offered to the company as a loan. Jim trusts Jake so much that he considers taking a short cut in valuing the company worth so he asks Jake to assist him with the updates. For sometimes, Jim and Jake represent the report to the management both working hand in hand in making the presentation a success and valued by the management.

During one final meeting for the presentation which comprised of all the managers and also the company directors, Jim and Jake are supposed to work together in the presentation which will be used to determine the company worth.  At this particular event, Jim lacks some information about the company after a question was asked by the bank manager and Jim does not seem to have an idea on how to respond and so Jim’s presentation is not convincing enough and incomplete (Hegar pg255). Jake is asked the same question and presents a full well formulated report on the same making Jim look like he is a waste to the bank. Jim expected to use this opportunity in order to gain a field experience on how to conduct such analysis and also convince the bank he is good enough to handle such cases but Jake ruined it for him. Jake has a hidden agenda of asking for a job at this bank and therefore the reason to sabotage Jim’s efforts.

1. Statement of the problem
2. There is lack of trust and taking advantage of another person’s efforts for granted.
3. Symptoms
4. Jims report is incomplete.
5. Jakes analysis convinces the managers and makes it more conclusive than that of Jim.
6. Jake and Jim both lack the personality traits.
7. Root causes
8. Jim seems like a lazy person who does not consider the consequences of being assisted to do his assignments.
9. Jake needs a job at the bank and therefore takes advantage of the situation in order to be liked by the managers and in the process ask for a position at the bank.
10. Too much trust on a person without the concern of what if the other person has ill motives and what could be the consequences.

• The decision that both the management and Jim are almost similar. Jim wonders whether he should trust his friend again any other time since he seems too selfish. The management wonders whether Jim can really be a good field agent to be sent out to represent the bank or he will be a disgrace.

1. Decision criteria and alternative solution
2. The decision can be much fulfilling if both Jim and Jake work together in coming up with a good analysis to determine the results of the analysis through trust and combined effort.
3. Alternative solutions
4. Jim and Jakes are both capable of making a conclusive detailed report but they do not trust each other. Jim should request Jake not to use the opportunity in making his way into the bank through risking his job.
5. Jim should use this opportunity to cut off communication with Jake as he is not a friend worth his attention.
6. Recommended solution
7. Both Jim and Jake should use this opportunity to clear their differences and allow the management to decide on whether Jake is fit to join the banking sector (Davies pg78). Jake risking Jim’s career through sabotaging only makes the situation worse and not worthy at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works cited

Davies, Ross E. "Some Clerical Contributions to Ex Parte Quirin." (2016).

Hegar, Kathryn W. Modern Human Relations at Work. Mason, OH: : South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.