Following newspaper speculation that the banking crisis of 2008 was partly caused by CEO hubris, this article seeks to analyse the CEO letters to shareholders of a single bank over ten years for evidence of CEO personality traits, including narcissism (a contributor to hubris), hubris, overconfidence and CEO-attribution.
- Brennan, N. M., & Conroy, J. P. (2013). Executive Hubris: The case of a bank CEO. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(2), 172-195.
Analyze this case from the perspective of your thought leader while highlighting issues of hubris.
The requirements for the analysis include:
- APA formatted paper including title and reference pages
- Minimum of 2 pages excluding title and reference pages
- Minimum of 2 references with citations
- Perspective of assigned world view
- Detailed analysis of hubris issues
Refer to the grading rubric below for grading criteria.
Students: Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.
Evaluation Rubric for Case Study Assignment
| CRITERIA | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT | PROFICIENT | EXEMPLARY |
| 0 – 15 points | 16 – 17 points | 18 – 20 points | |
| Main point | The main point is unclear, unfocused, and/or does not sufficiently relate to the issue of hubris | The main point is stated effectively and expressed sufficiently to set the stage for the topic related to hubris to be analyzed | The clear, concise and well-defined main point is creatively used to establish the foundation for the topic related to hubris to be analyzed |
| 0 – 23 points | 24 – 26 points | 27 – 30 points | |
| Analysis and References | Topic progression is disjointed, lacks congruence and/or does not follow logically from the topic statement. Less than 2 references provided. | There is a demonstrated progression of thought that is generally logical, but may lack integration, flow, and some evidentiary support. Includes at least 2 references. | There is a demonstrated logical progression of thought that is easy to follow, coherent, contains evidentiary support and forms a complete framework for content development. Includes at least 2 references. |
| 0 – 15 points | 16 – 17 points | 18 – 20 points | |
| Conclusion | Does not take a position (conclusion/ recommendation) on the major issue; irrelevant and/or vague details are used | Meaningful details presented but these may require further clarity and/or depth to support the position (conclusion/ recommendations) | Relevant, meaningful details are used to defend the position (support the conclusion/recommendations); integrates convincing supporting evidence |
| 0 – 11 points | 12 – 13 points | 14 -15 points | |
| Use of terminology and concepts | Analysis of specific perspective suffers from failure to accurately and/or appropriately apply terminology and concepts from the literature | Analysis of specific perspective relative to this issue is supported satisfactorily by the use of terminology and concepts from the literature | Terminology and concepts from the specific perspective are used effectively and appropriately to support detailed presentation of the issue |
| Writing Standards | Errors impede professional presentation of material; guidelines not followed | Few errors that do not impede professional presentation of material | Writing and format is clear, professional, APA compliant, and error free |
