Answer to Question 1
Answer: Ken violated many empowerment principles. He did not delegate completely (rather, he acted as if he did, but criticized Ruth for not following ruleswhich he had not informed her of, another violation). He gave her no deadlines and set an ambiguous goal. He did not specify the level of initiative he expected of Ruth, nor did he encourage her to help set objectives. Ken did not give her enough authority to carry out the responsibility with which he charged her, nor did he provide any support to carry out the tasks he assigned. He did not foster personal mastery experiences or model properly, and he certainly did not show confidence in her.
For her part, Ruth did not seek to clarify the objectives or have Ken specify acceptable levels of performance. She also should have asked about the budget, requested more information, and asked more about her accountability.
Answer to Question 2
Answer: Ken violated each of the delegation guidelines. He did not begin with the end in mind. Each conversation with Ruth seemed to be looking at a very short time period, both in the future and the past. He obviously did not care about her success in the organization. Ken failed to delegate completely. He retained control and continued to judge Ruth for decisions on matters that he appeared to have left up to her discretion. There was a disparity between authority and responsibility. Ruth was responsible for hiring but apparently overstepped her bounds when she hired an admin. Ken failed to focus on results. He showed a lot of frustration regarding the television spot (because she broke an unwritten policy) even though the end result was not negative for the company.
The family tree of HIV and related viruses
Although large, the cougar is more closely related to smaller felines.
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING MEMBERS OF VULNERABLE POPULATION GROUPS
Procedures and Diagnostic Tests Related to the Ear
Humans are related to Earth’s other organisms
Incidence of Down syndrome births related to maternal age