3. Should Susan recommend one of these candidates for the position or look for other candidates?

Begin external recruitment. None of the internal candidates demonstrate the well-rounded leadership competencies—strategic vision, ethical integrity, people development, emotional intelligence, and performance orientation—required of a successful general manager. While internal promotions can be valuable, in this case, external recruitment offers the best opportunity to find a capable, principled, and strategic leader for the role.

Strengths:

• Technically brilliant and enjoys challenges.

• Independent and driven.

Weaknesses:

• Poor interpersonal skills.

• Loner tendencies make him unsuited for cross-functional leadership.

• Neglects people management and team development.

• Critical of corporate policies and authority.

  
  

  Bill is an excellent engineer but an ineffective people leader. His preference for individual work, avoidance of managerial duties, and difficulty in building relationships raise major red flags. A general manager must inspire and manage a team, which Bill does not appear inclined or equipped to do.

  
  

Strengths:

• Ambitious, experienced in corporate marketing.

• Results-driven, politically savvy.

Weaknesses:

• Highly unethical (e.g., affairs with employees).

• Manipulative and defensive.

• Micromanages and discourages initiative.

• Lacks authenticity and integrity.

Ray is the most dangerous of the three. Despite surface-level competence and ambition, his unethical conduct, political gamesmanship, and controlling behavior pose serious risks to the company culture, employee morale, and even legal exposure.

Strengths:

• Strong interpersonal skills.

• Loyal and well-liked.

• Promotes teamwork and harmony.

Weaknesses:

• Conflict-avoidant, avoids pushing for higher performance.

• Lacks assertiveness and drive for excellence.

• Distributes rewards equally, regardless of merit—suggesting weak performance management.

Charley is likely a good middle manager in a stable environment, but he lacks the assertiveness, performance orientation, and strategic mindset needed for a general manager role. His aversion to conflict and performance pressure may lead to complacency at the division level.

🔹 Lack of performance push

“Charley wants his department to have a good performance record, but he is reluctant to jeopardize relations with subordinates by pushing them to improve their performance beyond current levels, which he believes are adequate.”

• This shows he avoids pushing for excellence, which is not suitable for a general manager who must drive results.

  
  

🔹 Conflict avoidance

“He is uncomfortable with conflict, and he tries to smooth it over quickly or find an acceptable compromise.”

• A GM needs to handle tough decisions and conflicts; Charley avoids rather than manages conflict.

  
  

🔹 Wants to be liked more than respected

“It is important to Charley to be liked and appreciated by people in the organization.”

• Indicates people-pleasing behavior, which can weaken leadership effectiveness at a higher level.

🔹 Poor delegation and team development

“His preoccupation with them [technical tasks] sometimes takes time away from some of his managerial responsibilities, such as developing and mentoring subordinates.”

• Shows that he focuses on technical work over managing or growing the team—a critical flaw for a GM.

  
  

🔹 Not comfortable with social interactions

“He still feels awkward around people he doesn't know well, and he dislikes social functions such as cocktail parties and company picnics.”

• Reflects poor interpersonal and networking skills, which are important at a senior leadership level.

  
  

🔹 Prefers working alone

“As a design engineer, Bill preferred assignments where he could work alone rather than team projects.”

• Suggests he may struggle with collaboration and cross-department coordination, key parts of a GM role.

🔹 Unethical behavior (affairs with employees)

“He fancies himself as quite a playboy and has had many affairs, including some with female employees.”

• This is a serious HR and ethical violation—a major red flag for any leadership role.

  
  

🔹 Manipulative and political

“He tries to undermine or discredit anybody who criticizes or opposes him.”
“Ray views the organization as a political jungle.”

• Indicates a toxic, power-hungry mindset—harmful for organizational culture.

  
  

🔹 Over-controlling leadership style

“He keeps a tight control over the operations of his department, and he insists that subordinates check with him before taking any action that is not routine.”

• Suggests micromanagement and lack of trust, which can stifle innovation and team morale.