Bethaney H. answered 08/13/25
Helping You Crush Your Career & Business Goals
From the case, it’s clear that Mr. Vu’s behavior and mindset were quite different from both his family’s and his employees’.
1. Behavior
- Mr. Vu: Highly hands-on and involved in every aspect of the business — from land purchase to construction to staffing and discipline.
- Family: After lending him the startup capital, they stepped back and played little to no active role in the business.
- Employees: Their behavior seems shaped by Mr. Vu’s direct leadership style; they followed his guidance but may not have been empowered to take initiative, especially in disciplinary matters.
2. Attitude
- Mr. Vu: Independent, self-reliant, and perhaps a bit controlling — he believed success depended on his direct involvement in everything.
- Family: More passive in their role; perhaps they saw their contribution as financial support rather than active participation.
- Employees: Likely deferential and possibly hesitant to challenge authority, given that discipline was handled exclusively by Mr. Vu.
3. Perception
- Mr. Vu: Saw himself as the sole driver of the company’s success — the one who needed to “do almost everything” to ensure things were done right.
- Family: May have perceived the business as Mr. Vu’s personal venture rather than a family enterprise.
- Employees: Viewed Mr. Vu as “the boss” in the truest sense — the ultimate authority figure whose personal approval or disapproval mattered most.
4. Business Culture
- Under Mr. Vu: Centralized decision-making with little delegation. The culture likely revolved around respect for (and perhaps fear of) the owner’s authority.
- From the Family’s Side: A more distant, investment-oriented view — the culture for them was about supporting from afar rather than influencing operations.
- Among Employees: A culture of following direct instructions from the top, with limited empowerment or autonomy, especially in sensitive areas like discipline.
Overall, Mr. Vu’s approach created a business culture centered heavily on him as the sole leader, which may have built strong personal loyalty but also limited the growth of shared leadership and initiative within the company.