I need support with this Business question so I can learn better.

250-word reply to 2 classmate’s threads. The reply requires a minimum of 1 properly formatted citation. Each reply must be completed by you, the individual student. Additionally, each thread and reply must reflect a solid Christian worldview through the use of at least 1 Holy Bible reference.

Responding to a classmate’s post requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon initial posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced in the initial posts. As such, reply posts that merely affirm, restate, or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.

Peer Response #1

Did Collins simply misinterpret how Wells Fargo reported their successes after 2001? Or was it something internal at Wells Fargo that caused the Hedgehog Concept to go awry? If so, how could profit per employee go so wrong? Most importantly, where was the failure in leadership and why?

Jim Collin’s contribution to the world of business and leadership has been nothing short of astounding. The ability to break down such a complex understanding of what it takes to become a great leader is not easily accomplished. Through his writings in both his article and the book, I find that Collins did a good job in interpreting the facts of Wells Fargo going from a smaller company that was not running at the ability it could have to the good to great company it could have been. Although he did a decent job on representing the information, I feel also that it was contradictory to what is stated in the textbook. In our textbook it states that to be a level 5 leader you must be modest, willful, humble and fearless to help them accomplish getting their companies from good to great (Collins, 2011). Also, that level 5 leaders are the ones that don’t speak about themselves and worry about what it is that will make the company thrive. By only looking to what the profits per employee were giving them, this caused the company to no longer look at the big picture of what long-term would make the company a great one. Jesus said to us in Philippians 2:5-8 “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus. Who, being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God, something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross! This scripture speaks as to remembering who we are and realizing that we must humble ourselves to the same standards we have for others. That is the failure in leadership within Wells Fargo. Taking advantage of profit from others who have no idea to seek the greed aspect of the job and not the reward of honesty.

Peer Response #2

In the article “Good to Great” Collins recognized that the 11 companies that they decided to research had similarities in comparison. In these companies with the most success Collins and his team were astonished at the results they discovered from these good to great companies. For example, Collins expected that good to great leaders would begin by setting a new vision and strategy, however found that was not the case. These leaders first placed the right people within their organization that that aligned with their vision and the ones who were not supportive they dismissed them. Once after organizing the right team they set sail for their journey. During his quest in researching these good to great companies, Collins in examining Wells Fargo performance misinterpreted fraudulent schemes for success.

It would be discovered Wells Fargo would change their economic driver from profit per loan to profit per an employee. “When the Wells team confronted the brutal fact that deregulation would transform banking into a commodity, they realized that standard banker metrics, like profit per loan and profit per deposit, would no longer be the key drivers. Instead, they grasped a new denominator: profit per employee” (Collins, 2001, pg. 104). It would later be discovered not only that Wells Fargo was wrong but in largely they were committing an act of fraud that would amount to $185 million in lawsuit fines along with other penalties. Moreover, because of these acts of misconduct caused the hedgehog strategy to fail.

The result of misconduct and the lack of integrity allowed the misinterpretation of success to result in major financial loss along with direct impact to the representation of what Wells Fargo represented in their communities. “Wells Fargo agreed to pay $1.2 billion and admitted, acknowledged and accepted responsibility for, among other things, certifying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), during the period from May 2001 through December 2008, that certain residential home mortgage loans were eligible for FHA insurance when in fact they were not, resulting in the Government having to pay FHA insurance claims when some of those loans defaulted” (Department of Justice, 2020). This incident stemmed from poor leadership and internal factors that were used to exploit an opportunity. This is recognized as fraud and it is illegal to do these acts. The Hedgehog concept is a strategic concept that is well recognized within the good to great organizations. What you can be the best in the world at, what creates revenue, and what are we passionate about.

In conclusion, leadership failed Wells Fargo when leaders decided to engage in directing the employees to create phony accounts using loyal customers personal information. Leaders must have instilled attributes that cannot be taught but that they must possess such as integrity, honesty, and be ethical. Because Wells Fargo CEO did not possess these qualities it resulted in lawsuits along with the damaging of who Wells Fargo meant for the people in these communities that relied on them.