b. Case Teaching Notes
1. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
The Case of Apple iPhone 4
CASE SYNOPSIS
This case reviews reputation and image management challenges facing Apple Computer, Inc. and its CEO, Steve Jobs,
before, during, and immediately following the release of the firm’s iPhone 4 in the summer of 2010. Challenges include
responding to an unauthorized “pre–release” of the phone features by an Internet blogger, managing high expectations
in the actual unveiling of the phone, and responding to problems with the phone’s internal antenna immediately
following its release.
CASE LEARNING GOALS
The case provides opportunities to examine the complexities of organizational reputation, leadership, and decision
making within an innovative and fast-changing competitive environment.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
5 Leadership
7 Persuasion, Influence, and Impression Management
8 Decision Making
10 Conflict and Negotiation
12 Culture
13 Change, Innovation, and Stress
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
5 – Leadership
Discussion Questions:
How was Steve Job’s leadership responsible for how Apple responded to the challenges in this case?
Possible Answers:
According to the expert contribution by James (topic section 5), Jobs appears to use a compliance style of leadership, in which
he is more concerned with the task than with people. A more team management leadership style may have worked better in
this case, as subordinates may have offered creative solutions that Jobs, himself, did not consider. In addition, Jobs could have
done better at building trust with consumers as a way of dealing with the crisis of “antenna gate.”
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Crisis Leadership: The New Norm for Effectively Leading Organizations, by Erika James (topic section 5)
7 – Persuasion,
Influence, and
Impression Management
Discussion Questions:
What could Apple have done differently, to protect its reputation, in responding to the challenges? How could Jobs have used
Influence and Perception Management tactics to improve how he came across in his press conference on July 2, 2010?
Possible Answers:
According to the topic summary for topic section 7, Apple could have used less “authoritative” tactics of persuasion, given that
there was substantial evidence that the iPhone 4 was flawed, and that the initial “unauthorized” release of the phone was done
by a product enthusiast (not a competitor). Persuasion tactics Jobs could have used to respond to the “antenna gate” problems
are “liking” (appealing to the large fan base Apple had), and “reciprocity” (showing good faith by fixing the problem and
providing a free phone case immediately – rather than later). Apple could also have created the impression that the consumers
and the firm were “on the same team” (see Elsbach’s expert contribution on “How You Look to Others…” (topic section 7)
through in-group references, rather than creating the impression that they were authoritative experts, and consumers were
uninformed novices.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– How You Look To Others: Understanding And Managing How Others Perceive
You, by Kimberly D. Elsbach (topic section 7)
8 – Decision Making
Discussion Questions:
How did Apple go about deciding how to respond to the initial antenna problems?
Duron (topic section 11)
– Leading Decision-Making Processes, by Michael A. Roberto (topic section 8)
10 – Conflict and Negotiation
Discussion Questions:
If you were an iPhone 4 purchaser, would you have felt satisfied following Steve Jobs’ press conference on July 2, 2010? Why
or why not? Do you think that Apple’s initial response to the antenna problems was fair? Why or why not?
Possible Answers:
Jobs did not appear to use several of the tenets of procedural and interactional justice in responding to antenna gate (see
expert contributions by Shapiro and Folger et al, listed below from topic sections 10 and 14). He did not consult consumers
nor did he express consideration of their concerns. He also did not treat consumers with dignity or respect. Instead, he
basically told them that the antenna problems were their fault for holding the phone wrong.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Essentiality Of “Justice” In Organizations: A Justice–As-Negotiation Perspective, by Debra L. Shapiro (topic section 10)
– The Psychology of Fairness At Work, by Robert Folger, Stephen Gilliland, and David Bowen (topic section 14)
12– Culture
Discussion Questions:
What about Apple makes it an innovative company? How did Apple’s
innovative culture lead to the antenna problems it encountered? How was
Apple’s innovative culture responsible for how it responded to the
challenges in this case?
Possible Answers:
In line with the expert contributions by Denison et al and Mason (topic section 12), Apple’s culture appears to be built on the
espoused values of innovation, entrepreneurship, and superior quality. These values are expressed through the company’s
focus on turning out new and innovative types of consumer electronics that are perfected prior to release. These values are
also expressed in the artifacts of Apple’s products, which often take on aesthetically pleasing forms. In the case of the iPhone
4, a focus on aesthetics and the cool features such as “face time” may have caused engineers to overlook the mundane issue of
the antenna. It may have also led to a defensive reaction about the quality of the iPhone 4, as complaints about the antenna
were a direct threat to that aspect of the culture.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Competitive Advantage Of Corporate Cultures, by Daniel Denison, Levi Nieminen, and Lindsey Kotrba (topic section 12)
– Organizational Culture, by Richard O. Mason (topic section 12)
13 – Change, Innovation, and
Stress
Discussion Questions:
Was the introduction of the iPhone 4 a disruptive innovation? Did Apple
discount or ignore any steps in the strategic change process when releasing the
iPhone 4 and then responding to customer complaints?
Possible Answers:
According to the topic summary for topic section 13 and the case, the iPhone 4 was not a completely different way to
communicate (so probably
wasn’t a true disruptive innovation), but its introduction of “face time” video conferencing was new. Apple did not consider
how familiar use of mobile phones would influence how iPhone 4 users would hold the phone. They needed to follow the
discussion in the Topic Summary in topic section 13 on how to “unfreeze” this routine if they were to be successful with the
new phone in its original format. Changing this behavior was probably not practical, and so, in thinking about this unfreezing
process (if they had done so), they would have probably decided to change the design of the phone. Apple could have also
considered the model by expert contributor Warner Burke (topic section 13), describing how to examine the fit of any new
action or event with existing organizational systems.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Organization Change, by W. Warner Burke (topic section 13)
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
2. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
“We Are Global or We Are Nothing”: Conflict and Cover-Up at ColequarterMaine
40
CASE LEARNING GOALS
Provides opportunities to explore challenges related to national culture and stereotypes, organizational culture and
reputation, motivation, team structure and composition, change, and communication and diversity in the workplace.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
4 Perception
6 Motivation
9 Groups and Teams
11 Diversity and Communication
13 Change, Innovation, and Stress
14 Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Sustainability
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
4 – Perception
Discussion Questions: How does ColequarterMaine’s external image differ from its internal one? What problems might this
create?
Possible Answers: Calgary manager Alan Cogliano said “we are global or we are nothing” to new recruits to emphasize the
firm’s internal philosophy and mission statement. CqM also uses the tagline, “One World, One Voice” to communicate this
mission. Yet, it appears from the dissent in the multinational work team that the reality is that many employees do not
understand nor appreciate working with those from other cultures. This misalignment may lead those in firm leadership to
overlook or not see how consumers actually view the firm. According to expert contributions by Martinko et al, and Elsbach
(topic section 4) ColequarterMaine’s leadership appears to be suffering from the actor-observer effect, and not realizing how
their own vantage point prevents them from seeing what employees on the ground may see.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Hurricane Katrina: A Case Study In Attribution Biases, by Mark J. Martinko, Jeremy Brees, And Jeremy D. Mackey (topic
section 4)
– How You Look To Others: Understanding And Managing How Others Perceive You, by Kimberly D. Elsbach (topic section 7)
6 – Motivation
Discussion Questions: What do you think was motivating Dustin Jenner to work hard on this project? Is his motivation
different to that of Gordon Eberle? Do you think the analysts who have requested transfers back to Canada were worried
about how their move could impact their career prospects? How can Eberle use research on happiness and trustworthiness
to improve the work climate in Venezuela?
Possible Answers: Given Jenner’s description as a hard–driving American with a win-at-all costs mentality, along with his
apparent success using this approach suggests that Jenner was driven by what McClelland (in the topic summary of topic
section 6) calls “Needs for Achievement” and “Needs for Personalized Power.” Gordon Eberle, on the other hand, appears to
have a longer-term perspective on success and wants the entire group to succeed. This perspective indicates that Eberle
may be more driven by “Needs for Achievement” and “Needs for Power Socialized Power.” It seems that the Canadian
workers who requested transfers were more motivated by “Needs for Affiliation” – as they complained about the negative
work environment rather than their ability to succeed and achieve in their careers. According to the expert contribution by
Denton (topic section 6), managers can improve optimism and happiness in a work climate by emphasizing positive goals
and small wins, and not placing blame for failures, but working to overcome them. In addition, according to the expert
contribution by Mayer (topic section 6), Eberle might help Jenner to understand the importance of ability, integrity, and
especially benevolence in building trust in his team. In particular, Jenner needs to learn to take the time to get to know his
workers and understand their concerns, if he is to be perceived as trustworthy.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Creating A Happy, Stress Free Workplace: It’s A Matter of Perspective, by D. Keith Denton (topic section 6)
– On Being Trustworthy, by Roger C. Mayer (topic section 7)
9 – Groups and Teams
Discussion Questions: What should Gordon do to fix the team dynamics in Venezuela? What should he do about Dustin
Jenner? How can the Venezuelan team members be made to work faster?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary from topic section 9, it appears that Jenner has not developed good
team norms nor has he assigned team roles in his multi-cultural team in Venezuela. Also, according to the expert
contributions by Mumford et al, as well as Caldwell et al (topic section 9), Gordon needs to have the team start over and
define specific team roles so that all jobs get done, as well as provide the team with an opportunity to develop norms for
work hours, collaboration, and interpersonal dynamics. Gordon may have to replace Dustin Jenner, as, based on the expert
contribution by Mayer (topic section 7), he has lost the trust of current team members and may not be able to regain trust in
the short period of time the team has to do its job. The Venezuelan team members may not need to work faster, just work
more efficiently. The assignment of team roles and the development of team norms may allow them to be more effective and
efficient in their work.
41
Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc.
contribution by Elsbach (topic section 7), Alex also uses the communication choice of referring to the Venezuelans as “your
South Americans” – suggesting that they are not “in–group members” with Alex and the other Canadians. Gordon interprets
this demand as a call to cover up potential toxic spills that the company is responsible for. According to the topic summary
in topic section 11, it appears that Alex does not understand the different cultural beliefs and values of the Venezuelans, and
also doesn’t understand the values of ColequarterMaine. Further, according to the expert contribution by Nardon (topic
section 11), Alex does not understand how to tailor a message so that it communicates effectively across cultures.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Communication and Diversity, by Luciara Nardon (topic section 11)
13 – Change, Innovation, and
Stress
Discussion Questions: How might the stress of 15-20 hour workdays have affected the consultants on the Gotham project?
What changes could Gordon make that might alleviate these stresses or help his consultants to better cope with these
stresses?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary for topic section 13, it appears that the long workdays have become a
form of “hindrance stress” that limits workers’ abilities to perform well. In addition, if many of the workers have a Type B
personality – those who do not seek high levels of achievement and urgency – this personality may make the stress of long
workdays even greater. Gordon needs to provide workers with instrumental and informational support so that they can
accomplish their tasks more efficiently (i.e., in less time). Also, according to the expert contribution from Bhagat (topic
section 13), Gordon may also wish to leverage the social and emotional support that South American cultures traditionally
receive from their families to help the workers reduce stress.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Work and Working in the Era of Globalization, by Rabi S. Bhagat (topic section 13)
14 – Corporate Social
Responsibility, Ethics, and
Sustainability
Discussion Questions: What should Gordon do about Alex’s request to help cover up the toxic spill? What pressure is
Gordon under to comply with the request?
Possible Answers: If ColequarterMaine wishes to meet societal expectations for Corporate Social Responsibility, Gordon
needs to be proactive in attending to the spill and not covering it up. According to the topic summary for topic section 14,
taking care of the environment is not only important for “environmental sustainability”, it also impacts “human
sustainability.” Gordon is under pressure to privilege Milton Freedman’s “shareholder value” perspective. This perspective
holds that the primary social responsibility is to maximize profits. However, as a modern corporation, ColequarterMaine
may do well to, instead, follow the “triple bottom line” perspective – which suggests that corporate goals should include,
simultaneously, economic, environmental, and human well-being. According to the expert contribution by Mirvis and
Bradley (topic section 14), ColequarterMaine should have three components of CSR guiding it: a strong mission or purpose, a
set of CSR actions aligned with that mission, and a strategic purpose that leverages the mission and the CSR actions.
Similarly, according to the expert contribution by Weaver (topic section 14), there are a number of actions leaders can
engage in to ensure that ethics are integrated across the organization (e.g., using ethical routines, using ethical language).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Business of Making a Better World, by Philip H. Mirvis and Bradley Googins
– Ethics, by Gary R. Weaver
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
3. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
EMERGENCY! We Need a Better Compensation System
CASE SYNOPSIS
This fictional case examines the challenges of creating a compensation system for Emergency Room physicians. The
case describes the requirements of the compensation system to (a) be considered fair by physicians working in
different roles within the Emergency Room (e.g., triage vs. primary care), and (b) motivate the right kinds of behavior
among physicians (e.g., providing quality care vs. high-cost treatments).
10 Conflict and Negotiation
12 Culture
13 Change, Innovation, and Stress
14 Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Sustainability
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
6- Motivation
Discussion Questions: What behaviors would each of Dr. Singh’s alternatives
motivate? Explain how and why. Which alternative do you think is best?
Would you suggest a fourth alternative that is better than any of those
suggested by Dr. Taylor?
Possible Answers: According to the expert contribution by Elsbach (topic section 6), Alternative 1 (pay a straight hourly
wage) would motivate physicians to spend more time with patients, as they are not being paid by the patient or procedure.
Alternative 2 (pay based on percentage of revenue generated) would motivate physicians to see more patients and,
potentially, charge for higher cost treatments. It may also motivate competitive behavior among physicians. Alternative 3
(pay an hourly wage plus a monthly group-level bonus) would motivate physicians to work collaboratively, but may also
motivate “free-riding,” as slower physicians may benefit from the fast work of their colleagues. Various trade-offs in these
scenarios should be discussed and argued. Additional alternatives might involve organization-level bonuses or bonuses that
occur only after every physician meets a minimum level of productivity.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Trade-Offs in Using Pay for Performance, by Kimberly D. Elsbach (topic section 6)
10 – Conflict and
Negotiation
Discussion Questions: How can Dr. Singh increase the chances that the doctors feel they will be treated fairly by the
compensation system? What dimensions of justice/fairness should Dr. Singh consider and attend to?
Possible Answers: According to expert contributions by Folger et al (topic
section 14), as well as Shapiro (topic section 10), Dr. Singh could employ
techniques to ensure both procedural and interactional fairness in the
compensation system. Procedural justice requires that those who are affected are
consulted in developing the system and understand the process used to decide
compensation amounts. Interactional justice requires that those affected are
treated with respect and dignity in developing and implementing the
compensation system. Dr. Singh should also focus on integrative solutions if
negotiating about the compensation system and work to find solutions that meet
all parties’ underlying interests.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Psychology of Fairness at Work, by Robert Folger, Stephen Gilliland, and David Bowen (topic section 14)
– The Essentiality of “Justice” in Organizations: A Justice-As-Negotiation Perspective, by Debra L. Shapiro (topic section 10)
12 – Culture
Discussion Questions: What values and assumptions are underlying the current compensation system at EPS? What
do these values say about the organizational culture at EPS? How would each of the proposed alternatives affect
the culture at Westlake?
Possible Answers: The current compensation system at EPS appears to assume
that one’s value as a physician can be measured in charge points. An underlying
value appears to be that of productivity (vs. quality of care). According to the
expert contributions by Denison et al, as well as Mason (topic section 12), these
values and assumptions contribute to a culture where physicians are competing
for shifts that allow higher charge points, and may be leading some physicians to
over-charge and under-care for patients. The hourly wage alternative would
reduce the importance of productivity and may encourage more quality of care.
The complete revenue-based alternative would reinforce and strengthen the
productivity values. The group-based bonus system might provide a balance
between productivity and quality of care.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Cultures, by Daniel Denison, Levi Nieminen, and Lindsey Kotrba (topic section 12)
– Organizational Culture, by Richard O. Mason (topic section 12)
13 – Change, Innovation, and
Stress
Discussion Questions: What process could Dr. Singh use to come up with a completely innovative and new
compensation system? What are some factors that might be considered in a more innovative decision process?
Possible Answers: Dr. Singh would have to make sure that the culture at EPS
supported creativity and experimentation and also would need to make sure teams
of innovators had the appropriate resources (including time) to develop and
implement their ideas. Dr. Singh must possess the qualities of humility and
perseverance in leading the innovation and change. Finally, Dr. Singh may want
43
– Decision Making by Design: A Blueprint for Balancing Execution and Innovation, by Deone Zell, Alan M. Glassman, and Shari
Duron (topic section 13)
14 – Corporate Social
Responsibility, Ethics, and
Sustainability
Discussion Questions: What ethical issues should Dr. Singh consider in developing the compensation plans? What
ethical problems may arise from each of the three proposed compensation plans? Is there another alternative plan
that is more ethical than the three that are proposed?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary for topic section 14, Dr.
Singh should consider the “pragmatic,” “intellectual,” and “human” value
orientations of the physicians when developing the compensation system. Also,
according to the expert contribution by Weaver (topic section 14), ethical
problems may arise if she only considers some of these values, or if conflicts
between these value orientations exist. All three of the alternatives pose
problems to one or more of these value orientations.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Ethics, by Gary R. Weaver (topic section 14)
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
4. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
Face Time at TechPoint Software, Inc.
CASE SYNOPSIS
This fictional case examines a manager’s dilemma regarding the promotion of one of his brightest and highest
performing employees, Julie, who also does not seem to understand or fit in with the company’s culture of “face time.”
Julie’s co-workers complain about her teamwork and have criticized her ideas. Julie’s manager must consider how
promoting Julie will be perceived by her co-workers and how it might affect the company culture.
CASE LEARNING GOALS
The case provides an opportunity for students to apply concepts and theories related to learning, perception, decision
making, teams, organizational culture, and ethics.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
3 Learning
4 Perception
6 Motivation
9 Groups and Teams
12 Culture
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
3- Learning
Discussion Questions: If Jay took a “Learning–Directed” approach to leadership in making this decision, how might he
approach it?
Possible Answers: According to the expert contribution by Kayes and
Kayes (topic section 3), Jay would engage in leadership behaviors that
focus on learning, such as increasing his awareness of the current situation
with Julie, learning from past experience, encouraging behavior change,
improving professional judgment, and breaking down hierarchical rules
that prevent all the above behaviors.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Learning-Directed Leadership In a Changing World, by Anna B. Kayes and D. Christopher Kayes (topic section 3)
44
perceptions (e.g., viewing dissimilar others as negative), and automatic
perceptions (e.g., assuming that good workers engage in lots of face time
because that’s what they see around them). Also, according to the expert
contribution by Martinko et al (topic section 4) they appear to be
engaging in the “actor–observer” effect in not being able to understand that
Julie doesn’t know the cultural norms because she missed “bootcamp.”
And finally, according to the expert contribution by Ross et al (topic
section 4), they are engaging in the “blind spot bias” because they think
that all employees should think like they do. Jay needs to take the actions
described in the readings to undo these biases (e.g., help co-workers to see
Julie as an in-group member who is similar to them, help them to take a
different perspective of the situation, provide evidence that successful
workers do not have to do things the same way as they do, provide more
contact between Julie and her co-workers to undo stereotypes about each
other).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– How You Look to Others: Understanding and Managing How Others Perceive You, by Kimberly D. Elsbach (topic section
7)
– Hurricane Katrina: A Case Study in Attribution Biases, by Mark J. Martinko, Jeremy Brees, and Jeremy D. Mackey (topic
section 4)
– The Bias Blind Spot and its Implications, by Lee Ross, Joyce Ehrlinger, and Thomas Gilovich (topic section 4)
9- Teams and Groups
Discussion Questions: What team roles might Julie be a good fit for? Why?
Possible Answers: In terms of internal team roles, according to the expert
contribution by Mumford et al (topic section 9), Julie would be a good fit
for “task roles.” In particular, her expertise might make her a good fit for
the roles of “creator” and “contributor.” She might also be a good fit for the
“critic” role. She appears less well–suited for the “social roles” of
“communicator,” “cooperator,” or “calibrator.” In terms of boundary
spanning roles, according to the expert contribution by Caldwell et al (topic
section 9), Julie might be a good fit for a “consul” who would promote the
team to others outside of TechPoint.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Teams In Organizations: 10 Team Roles To Foster Team Effectiveness, by Troy V. Mumford, Michael C. Campion, and
Michael A. Campion (topic section 9)
– Teamwork from the Inside Out, by David Caldwell, Deborah Ancona, and Henrik Bresman (topic section 9)
12– Culture
Discussion Questions: How would you define the culture at TechPoint? What underlying assumptions and values
define this culture? What evidence is there of these underlying assumptions? How are Julie’s actions in concert or
conflict with the assumptions that guide TechPoint’s culture? Does TechPoint have a culture of “psychological safety”?
How might you change the culture at TechPoint?
Possible Answers: According to the expert contributions by Mason, as
well as Denison et al (topic section 12), TechPoint’s culture might be
defined by the underlying assumption that being seen at work is indicative
of working hard. The values that underlie TechPoint’s culture are long
hours, pitching in, and following norms of “face time.” There is ample
evidence of these norms, from the hours people work, to the sanctions
given when these values or assumptions are not honored. Julie’s actions of
not working late, pitching in with extra work, and not following norms for
“face time” are examples of not honoring these values and assumptions.
According to the expert contribution by Edmondson (topic section 12), it
does not appear that most employees at TechPoint feel psychologically
safe enough to challenge the status quo. However, employees do appear to
feel comfortable enough to complain when they perceive injustice. To
change the culture, Jay would need to follow Denison et al’s process of
understanding the current culture, deciding what to change, unfreezing the
current culture, and then altering and re-freezing the new culture.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Organizational Culture, by Richard O. Mason (topic section 12)
– The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Cultures, by Daniel Denison, Levi Nieminen, and Lindsey Kotrba (topic section
12)
an interactional justice process, Jay would have to treat those affected by
– The Essentiality of “Justice” in Organizations: A Justice-As-Negotiation Perspective, by Debra L. Shapiro (topic section 10)
– The Psychology of Fairness at Work, by Robert Folger, Stephen Gilliland, and David Bowen (topic section 14)
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
5. TEACHING NOTE
What Ever Happened to One of the “100 Best Companies to Work For”?
A Case Study of Hewlett-Packard
CASE SYNOPSIS
This case examines the real-life events surrounding Hewlett-Packard’s (HP’s) fall in the rankings of the “100 Best
Companies to Work for in America” published by Fortune Magazine from 1998-2010. The case focuses on the words
and actions of CEO Carly Fiorina, who took over HP in 1999, and how these words and actions may have contributed to
employee distrust in her and the company.
CASE LEARNING GOALS
The case provides an opportunity for students to apply general concepts and theories related to organizational
behavior, as well as to apply specific concepts related to individual differences, perception, leadership, communication,
and culture in organizations.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
1 Introduction to Organizational Behavior
2 Individual Characteristics
4 Perception
5 Leadership
11 Diversity and Communication
12 Culture
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
1 – Introduction to
Organizational
Behavior
Discussion Questions:
What skills did Fiorina need in order to be successful at the reinvention of HP? What tactics could Fiorina have used to
improve her chances of successfully reinventing HP?
Possible Answers: Based on the introductory chapter in this volume, Fiorina
would need the skills related to “adaptability and flexibility,” “professionalism,”
“teamwork,” “innovation,” “ethics,” and “diversity.” These skills in particular are
related to change as well as organizational culture, which were salient issues at
HP. According to the expert contribution by David Bradford (topic section 1),
Fiorina would have needed the competencies of “interpersonal and team skills” as
well as the ability to “develop the appropriate culture” at HP. In terms of tactics
for success, Fiorina could have used Fulmer’s 5A Model for implementing
strategic change (topic section 1), including the steps of awareness, anticipation,
action, alignment, and assessment of the new HP.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Challenges of Leadership; The Relevance of Organization Behavior, by David L. Bradford (topic section 1)
– How Companies Keep on Winning: A System for Developing Global Leaders, by Robert Fulmer (topic section 1)
2 – Individual Characteristics
Discussion Questions:
Which of the Big 5 personality dimensions might define Fiorina? How might introverts react to her personality? How
46
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Solving the Introvert Problem, by Laurie Helgoe (topic section 2)
– Narcissism and Its Role in Organizations, by W. Keith Campbell and Stacy M. Campbell (topic section 2)
– The Importance of Affect at Work, by Donald E. Gibson and Sigal G. Barsade (topic section 2)
– The Challenge of Managing Emotions in the Workplace, by Neal M. Ashkanasy and Catherine S. Daus (topic section 2)
4 – Perception
Discussion Questions:
What were the social identities of HP employees Fiorina when came on board? How did Fiorina’s actions affect these
social identities?
Possible Answers: Based on the expert contribution by Hogg (topic section 4),
one might guess that HP employees saw themselves as members of the HP
family. The prototype of such members would be a highly devoted worker with a
focus on innovation and entrepreneurship and a strong sense of work-life balance.
Fiorina may have been perceived as an outgroup member (i.e., not a true member
of the HP family) and someone to be disliked. As a result, her actions may have
caused HP employees to feel that their prior identities were threatened.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Social Identity: How We Define Ourselves by Our Groups, by Michael Hogg (topic section 4)
5 – Leadership
Discussion Questions:
How would you describe the leadership style of HP’s founders and leaders prior to Fiorina? How would you describe
Fiorina’s leadership style? How did the different leadership styles affect employees?
Possible Answers: Based on the topic summary on Leadership (topic section 5)
and Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid, HP’s founders could be described as
having a “team management” style of leadership (concern for both people and
task), and also might have been described as what James McGregor Burns
described as “transformational” leaders, or what Goffee & Jones (expert
contribution topic section 5) describe as “effective leaders.” By contrast, Fiorina
appears to use Blake and Mouton’s “compliance” style of leadership (concern for
task but not for people), and might be described as what Goffee & Jones describe
as a “maverick” leader. Fiorina’s leadership style contrasted with the founders’
styles in her inattention to subordinates. In a sense, she was unable to be led from
below, as discussed by Useem (expert contribution topic section 5), nor was she
able to build trust as discussed by James (expert contribution topic section 5).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Ups and Downs of Leading People, by Michael Useem (topic section 5)
– Crisis Leadership: The New Norm for Effectively Leading Organizations, by Erika James (topic section 5)
– Why Should Anyone Be Led By You? by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones (topic section 5)
12– Culture
Discussion Questions:
What values were underlying the HP Way? How did this culture change after Fiorina? Why?
Possible Answers: Based on the topic summary in topic section 12, HP’s
original values might be characterized as those associated with a “clan” culture
(i.e., family-like, commitment to employees, high employee participation and
collaboration). According to the expert contribution by Denison et al (topic
section 12), HP’s original culture might have been characterized primarily by
“consistency” in the firm’s commitment to the HP way. This culture changed
after Fiorina came on board because she did not support the HP way in her major
decisions, and in her overall campaign to “reinvent” HP. In particular, she
showed a lack of commitment to employees when she laid off large numbers of
staff, even after promising not to.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Organizational Culture, by Richard O. Mason (topic section 12)
– The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Cultures, by Daniel Denison, Levi Nieminen, and Lindsey Kotrba (topic section
12)
11– Diversity and Communication
Discussion Questions:
How did the language and labels used by Fiorina affect employees? Did Fiorina develop a creative collaboration with
employees in her efforts to “reinvent” HP?
Possible Answers: According the topic summary in topic section 11, Fiorina’s
language and labels affected the storytelling components of her message about
reinventing HP. In particular, her use of terms that describe the old HP Way as
47
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
6. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
NASCAR’s Drive for Diversity: Can They Reach the Finish Line?
CASE SYNOPSIS
This case examines the first few years of a real-world diversity program begun by NASCAR (i.e., the National
Association for Stock Car Auto Racing), aimed at increasing the diversity of drivers in its racing series. The case
examines the challenges of increasing diversity in a sport that has been dominated by white, male drivers for over 60
years. These challenges include not only developing a pipeline of new drivers from diverse backgrounds, but also in
attracting fans from these diverse backgrounds.
CASE LEARNING GOALS
The case provides an opportunity for students to apply concepts and theories related to learning in organizations,
perceptions and social identity, decision-making processes, diversity and communication issues in organizations, and
culture in organizations.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
3 Learning
4 Perception
8 Decision Making
11 Diversity and Communication
12 Culture
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
3- Learning
Discussion Questions:
How can NASCAR officials learn from the D4D struggles so far? What should they do to ensure that they learn the
most from this experience? How can they build on this experience to improve the future of D4D?
Possible Answers: Based on the topic summary for section 3, officials may need
to engage in more “social learning” by observing and modeling the successful
actions of other diversity programs. In addition, according to the expert
contribution by Michael J. Marquardt (topic section 3), NASCAR officials can
take an “action learning” approach to the problem, involving the seven stages of
the action learning process. In a similar way, officials might use an “experiential
learning cycle” (described by expert contributors Kolb and Yeganeh, topic
section 3) to gain insight about the D4D program. Finally, officials could take a
“directed leadership” perspective in attacking the problem, based on the expert
contribution by Kayes and Kayes (topic section 3).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Learning-Directed Leadership In a Changing World, by Anna B. Kayes and D. Christopher Kayes (topic section 3)
– Action Learning, by Michael J. Marquardt (topic section 3)
– Deliberate Experiential Learning: Mastering the Art of Learning from Experience, by David A. Kolb and Bauback Yeganeh (topic
section 3)
4- Perception
Discussion Questions:
How might one’s social identity as a NASCAR fan be influencing people’s perception of the D4D program?
Possible Answers: According to the expert contribution by Michael Hogg (topic
48
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Social Identity: How We Define Ourselves By Our Groups, by Michael Hogg (topic section 4)
8 – Decision
Making
Discussion Questions:
In deciding to keep or discontinue their D4D program, how would
NASCAR use a “rational” approach to decision making? What heuristics
and biases might decision makers be prone to? How can decision makers
cultivate constructive conflict while building consensus for their
decisions?
Possible Answers: According the topic summary for topic section 8, rational
decision makers should follow an eight-step process (i.e., identify the problem or
opportunity, identify decision criteria, identify alternatives, allocate weights to
alternatives, evaluate alternatives, and select the best alternative). Also,
according to this topic summary, decision makers may fall prey to a number of
biases and heuristics in decision making, including overconfidence, anchoring,
confirmation bias, gambler’s fallacy, the availability heuristic, and hindsight bias.
In addition to these biases, expert contributors Hallgren and Elsbach (topic
section 8) suggest that decision makers may fall prey to dysfunctional goal
pursuit in cases like the D4D program, where the organization was designed with
one goal in mind (i.e., increasing diversity among drivers). Finally, according to
the expert contribution by Michael Roberto (topic section 8), decision makers can
cultivate constructive conflict by establishing ground rules and assigning roles to
decision makers. They can build consensus by engaging in fair process decision
making, including considering all parties’ input and explaining clearly the
rationale for decisions.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Leading Decision-Making Processes, by Michael A. Roberto (topic section 8)
– On Best-Practice Decision Making, by Paul C. Nutt (topic section 8)
– How Temporary Organizations Promote Dysfunctional Goal Pursuit: The Case of the 1996 Mount Everest Disaster by Kimberly
D. Elsbach and Marcus Hallgren (topic section 8)
11– Diversity and
Communication
Discussion Questions:
What diversity management practices and methods might help the D4D program? What communication practices
might be used to communicate better the goals of the D4D program?
Possible Answers: According to the expert contribution by Valerie Myers (topic
section 11), NASCAR must manage diversity along the three different paradigms
of (1) discrimination and fairness, (2) access and legitimacy, and (3) learning and
effectiveness. In addition, NASCAR must develop metrics for measuring
improvements in diversity throughout its organization, not just among its drivers.
Together, these changes will contribute to an overall culture of diversity within
the organization. According to the expert contribution by Luciara Nardon (topic
section 11), NASCAR officials can better communicate their diversity efforts by
engaging in three different strategies: (1) expanding their knowledge and
understanding of multiple cultures, (2) recalibrating their skills for perceiving and
analyzing the thoughts and behaviors of multiple cultures, and (3) expanding their
repertoire of communication skills with multiple cultures. Nardon gives specific
advice on how to enact these strategies.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Communication and Diversity, by Luciara Nardon (topic section 11)
– Diversity Ideologies in Action: Energizing Renewal and Excellence in Healthcare, by Valerie L. Myers (topic section 11)
12– Culture
Discussion Questions:
How would you describe the culture of NASCAR? What are the values that underlie this culture? How are those
values reinforced in daily activities and behaviors? How is the culture symbolized?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary of topic section 12, one
could use Hofstede’s 5 Dimensions of Organizational Culture to define
NASCAR’s culture. Based on this model, one might define NASCAR as having
high power distance across members, a collectivist orientation, a masculine
perspective, a high level of uncertainty avoidance, and a long-term orientation.
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
7. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
Perceptions of Leaders Following Public Failures: A Tale of Two Coaches
CASE SYNOPSIS
This case examines the real-life trials of two U.S. college football coaches in dealing with personal scandals. The case
explores how each of the coaches was perceived by the general public and how those perceptions affected the penalties
each paid. In addition, the case illustrates some of the ways in which communication and perception may affect
leadership during crisis events.
CASE LEARNING GOALS
The case provides an opportunity for students to apply concepts and theories related to individual characteristics such
as emotional displays and narcissism, perception and perceptual inconsistencies, leadership during crisis, influence and
impression management, and ethical decisions by organizations.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
2 Individual Characteristics
4 Perception
5 Leadership
7 Persuasion, Influence, and Impression Management
14 Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Sustainability
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
2- Individual Characteristics
Discussion Questions:
How might emotional reactions to the coaches’ failures affect how the public views them? How might the coaches
have used “emotional labor” to display better images to the public? Does either of the coaches display components of
the Narcissistic Personality?
Possible Answers: According to the case, Coach Mike Leach responded with
anger and attacks on the victim, while Coach Gary Barnett appeared to respond
with defensiveness and claims of innocence and unawareness of any problem.
Based on the topic summary from topic section 2, these “displayed” emotions
may be unacceptable for leaders – who are expected to be more even-tempered.
According to the expert contributions by Gibson and Barsade, as well as
Ashkanasy and Daus (topic section 2), the coaches could have engaged in
“emotional labor” and presented calm and in-control demeanors when responding
to critics. Based on information from the case, it appears that both coaches may
display some aspects of the Narcissistic Personality, but Coach Leach seems to
have more of these traits (e.g., a perception of his own infallibility).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Narcissism and its Role in Organizations, by W. Keith Campbell and Stacy M. Campbell (topic section 2)
– The Importance of Affect at Work, by Donald E. Gibson and Sigal G. Barsade (topic section 2)
– The Challenge of Managing Emotions in the Workplace, by Neal M. Ashkanasy and Catherine S. Daus (topic section 2)
4 – Perception
Discussion Questions:
How was Coach Leach perceived by the public? How was Coach Barnett
perceived? How were the coaches’ self-perceptions consistent or
inconsistent with those of the general public? Why do you think these
inconsistencies arose?
Possible Answers: According to the case, Coach Leach was perceived as
importance of integrity in developing trustworthiness. According to the topic
50
and Mackey, as well as Ross, Ehrlinger, and Gilovich (topic section 4), these
differences in perception may have been due to a number of perceptual biases,
including the actor-observer effect and the blind-spot bias.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– The Bias Blind Spot and its Implications, by Lee Ross, Joyce Ehrlinger, and Thomas Gilovich (topic section 4)
– Hurricane Katrina: A Case Study in Attribution Biases, by Mark J. Martinko, Jeremy Brees, and Jeremy D. Mackey (topic section
4)
– On Being Trustworthy, by Roger C. Mayer (topic section 7)
5 – Leadership
Discussion Questions:
How could the two coaches more effectively have managed their individual
crises?
Possible Answers: According to the “situational approach to leadership”
(discussed in the topic summary for topic section 5), leaders need to understand
the situation or context in which they are leading and adjust their leadership
approaches to the circumstances. In a crisis situation, a leader may need to be
more directive and authoritative, but in instances where a leader needs to
galvanize a team effort, more charismatic leadership is needed. It appears that
both coaches could have benefited from more charismatic or “transformational”
leadership. In addition, according to the expert contribution by James (topic
section 5), both coaches could have responded better by first building trust, then
taking courageous action, and finally, by learning from the crisis. Lastly,
according to the expert contribution by Goffee and Jones (topic section 5), the
leaders could have benefited from managing social distance and communicating
with care, as well as knowing and showing themselves authentically.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Why Should Anyone Be Led By You? by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones (topic section 5)
– Crisis Leadership: The New Norm for Effectively Leading Organizations, by Erika James (topic section 5)
7 – Persuasion, Influence, and
Impression Management
Discussion Questions:
What tactics could each of the coaches have used to increase their impressions with the public? How could they have
impressed their superiors? How could they have increased their images of trustworthiness?
Possible Answers: According to the expert contribution by Elsbach (topic
section 7), the coaches could have improved their impressions with the public by
self-categorizing themselves as concerned citizens in attempts to be seen as in–
group members with the public. They could have behaved in ways that indicated
they were prototypical concerned citizens (e.g., launching investigations, etc.).
According to the expert contribution by Rao and Schmidt (topic section 7), the
coaches could have impressed their supervisors by using the tactics of reason,
allies, and friendliness. These tactics work well with coaches who have low
power, like Leach and Barnett. According to the expert contributions by Mayer
(topic section 7) and Lewicki (topic section 10), both coaches could have
increased their trustworthiness by engaging in actions that showed calculus-based
trust or interpersonal trust, and by showing benevolence, integrity, and
competence.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– How You Look to Others: Understanding and Managing How Others Perceive
You, by Kimberly D. Elsbach (topic section 7)
– Impressing Up: Objectives, Tactics, and Results of Upward Influence, by Asha Rao and Stuart M. Schmidt (topic section 7)
– On Being Trustworthy, by Roger C. Mayer (topic section 7)
– Trust, by Roy J. Lewicki (topic section 10)
14 – Corporate Social
Responsibility, Ethics, and
Sustainability
Discussion Questions:
Why was one coach fired, while the other one was retained?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary in topic section 14, there are
many reasons that making ethical decisions are difficult. In this case, some of the
relevant reasons appear to be that it is difficult to ascertain what each coach’s
intentions and motivations were, and there were competing definitions of what is
moral behavior (e.g., do you have to be actively engaged in wrong-doing to be
immoral, or just turn a blind eye?). According to expert contributions by Weaver
and by Folger, Gilliland, and Bowen (topic section 14), the different penalties
may have appeared to fit the different crimes, and thus, were seen as
“distributively fair.” In addition, the process of determining guilt in both cases
involved testimony by knowledgeable others, and so, even though the penalties
– The Psychology of Fairness at Work, by Robert Folger, Stephen Gilliland, and David Bowen (topic section 14)
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
8. TEACHING NOTE FOR:
Conflict in Santa’s Workshop: Learning to be a Team Player at ToyKing
CASE SYNOPSIS
This fictional case examines the challenges of teamwork in a creative environment, where individuals may desire
independence and creative control over team projects. The case also explores the difficulty in managing self-organizing
teams and the issue of conflicts between individual and team goals.
CASE LEARNING GOALS
The case provides an opportunity for students to apply concepts and theories related to personality characteristics,
promotion as motivation, working in teams, negotiation, and issues of communication and gender.
TOPIC SECTIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
Topic# Topic Name
2 Individual Characteristics
6 Motivation
9 Groups and Teams
10 Conflict and Negotiation
11 Diversity and Communication
FACILITATION OF CASE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Topic Area
Discussion Question Notes
2 – Individual Characteristics
Discussion Questions:
What personality characteristics do you think define Karen? How might
Karen’s personality affect her work in teams?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary for topic section 2, Karen
might be described by the “Big 5 Personality Characteristics” model as having a
high need for achievement and a high degree of openness for experience. These
characteristics lead her to be highly motivated to achieve results and to be open to
experimentation. Also, according to the expert contribution by Campbell and
Campbell (topic section 2), Karen might be described as having a narcissistic
personality (i.e., self-perceptions of superiority, pursuit of self-enhancing
activities, and lack of real, trusting relationships). Together, these characteristics
might make it difficult for Karen to truly collaborate on teams (because she
thinks she knows more than everyone else), to pursue individual goals at the cost
of team goals, and may even lead to ethical lapses (e.g., lying to or misleading
others for self-gain).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Narcissism and Its Role in Organizations, by W. Keith Campbell and Stacy M. Campbell (topic section 2)
6- Motivation
Discussion Questions:
What was motivating Karen to work hard on this project? How did
ToyKing’s promotion system affect Karen’s behavior? How could ToyKing
use technology to better train employees like Karen to work in teams?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary for topic section 6, Karen
was motivated by what David McClelland called a “Need for Achievement” (i.e.,
a need to accomplish tasks) and a “Need for Power” (i.e., a need to control one’s
environment). Also, according to Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy, Karen was
motivated by higher-level needs for self-esteem. By contrast Karen does not
appear to be motivated by needs for affiliation or social belonging. Similarly,
according to the expert contribution by Niemiec et al (topic section 6), Karen
appeared to be motivated by extrinsic aspirations (e.g., to win awards and be
52
other designers. Of course, ToyKing would need to balance this high-tech
training with more traditional training that emphasizes the personal, or
“high–touch” components of team work.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– High-Tech, High-Touch Tension: Trends in Human Resource Management, by Troy R. Nielson, Ellen Ensher, and Elisa Grant-
Vallone (topic section 6)
– Moving Beyond The American Dream: How Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aspirations Relate to Psychological, Social, and Physical
Health, by Christopher P. Niemiec, Bart Soenens, and Maarten Vansteenkiste (topic section 6)
9 – Groups and Teams
Discussion Questions:
Do you think that Karen was a good team player? Did she work as a team with Mike and Andy? What could she have
done to be a better team player?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary of topic section 9, as well as
the expert contribution by Mumford, et al (topic section 9), Karen did not
play an essential role that she appeared to be assigned – the role of “coordinator”
(i.e., the person that facilitates inter-team interactions). Karen did not include the
staff assigned her team, nor did she coordinate activities between these assigned
staff and the technicians she brought on later. Also, according to the topic
summary, the original team that Karen put together (i.e., with Cassie and Sam)
did not work through the “norming” stage of team development – and thus, did
not develop any ground rules for working together or assigning roles. While it
appears that Karen was successful in using Andy and Mike (the technicians), her
disregard of them during the presentation, and her lack of integrating them into
the larger team showed that Karen was not good at what expert contributors
Caldwell et al (topic section 9) call “boundary spanning” roles. To
improve her teamwork and the total team environment, Karen could have used
what expert contributors Gibbs and Gibson (topic section 9) call a
“psychologically safe communication climate” – where team members feel safe
speaking up and a climate of trust and openness develops. This type of
environment would have encouraged Sam and Cassie to speak up earlier in the
team process, and may have also allowed Karen to speak up to Jeff. Such a
climate is especially important to virtual teams, but can help in-person teams as
well (see also Expert Contribution by Edmondson, topic section 12).
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– Teams in Organizations:10 Team Roles to Foster Team Effectiveness, by Troy V. Mumford, Michael C. Campion, and Michael A.
Campion (topic section 9)
– Teamwork from the Inside Out, by David Caldwell, Deborah Ancona, and Henrik Bresman (topic section 9)
– Making Virtual Teams More Innovative through Effective Communication, by Jennifer L. Gibbs and Cristina B. Gibson (topic
section 9)
– Team Learning Culture, by Amy C. Edmondson (topic section 12)
10 –Conflict and
Negotiation
Discussion Questions:
How might Karen negotiate with Jeff to allow her to maintain control over
the toy concept going forward? How can Karen make her proposal appear
fair to Jeff? What negotiation traps should Karen be aware of and avoid?
Possible Answers: According to the topic summary of topic section 10, Karen
would probably want to use a collaborative style of negotiation with Jeff, because
she wants to maintain a positive long-term relationship with Jeff, as well as arrive
at a negotiation outcome that provides her with substantive outcomes (e.g.,
control over the ToyCity project). According to the expert contribution by Folger
et al, as well as Lewicki (topic section 10), to make her proposal appear fair to
Jeff, Karen should use both procedural and interactional justices processes, as
well as building both identification-based and calculus-based trust. Finally,
according to the expert contribution by Elsbach (topic section 10), Karen should
avoid framing her proposal to Jeff in terms of “potential gains” – as this will
make Jeff risk averse. Karen should also be wary of irrational escalation in her
commitment to complete ownership of the project. Such an unbending attitude
may be preventing her from having majority ownership, which is still a positive
53
have interpreted this statement through a different communication lens, and
focused on the single use of the word “we” to mean that the project was shared.
These differences could explain why Karen thought that Jeff was only
“introducing” the project to the managers, rather than making the whole
presentation. According to the expert contribution by Elsbach (topic section 11),
Karen could have fostered creative collaboration with Jeff by demonstrating
empathy for and similarity to Jeff, and by engaging in prototypical behavior of a
collaborator.
Use with the following Expert Contributions:
– How to Turn an Engaging Conversation into a Creative Collaboration, by Kimberly D. Elsbach (topic section 11)
SUGGESTED TEACHING PLAN – for 50-minute session
Topic/Content
Time
(minutes)
1
Overview of case issues and parties
5-10
2
Small group discussion of chosen case questions
15
3
Large class discussion of chosen case questions
15
4
Review of relevant topic concepts and case wrap up
10–15
V. Experiential Exercises Matrix
a. Matrix of Exercises for Use with Topic Sections
Topic
Summaries
______________
Exercises
1.
Introduction
to
Organizational
Behavior
2.
Individual
Characteristics
3.
Learning
4.
Perception
5.
Leadership
6.
Motivation
7.
Persuasion,
Influence, and
Impression
Management
8.
Decision
Making
9.
Groups
and
Teams
10.
Conflict and
Negotiation
11.
Diversity
and
Communication
12.
Culture
13.
Change,
Innovation,
and Stress
14.
Corporate
Social
Responsibility,
Ethics, and
Sustainability
1. Big Five
Celebrity
Spotlight
X
2. Creating My
Brand
X
X
X
3. My Expat
Assignment
X
X
X
4. How Leaders
Effect You
X
X
X
5. My Best and
Worst Learning
Experiences
X
X
X
X
6. Developing
Your Career—
Leadership
Development in
Action
X
X
X
X
7. Development
While in College
X
X
8. Facts and
Opinions
X
X
X
9. Being Positive
X
X
X
X
10. Force Field
Analysis
X
X
11. Bias and
Decision Making
X
X
12. Well-Being
at Work
X
X
13. What
Stresses You
Out?
X
X
14. Laughter Is
the Best
Medicine
X
X
15. Building My
Network—
Individual
X
X
X
X
X
16. Writing a
Team Contract
X
X
X
17. Design Your
Technology
X
X
18. Team
Performance
Evaluation
X
X
X
19. Overcoming
Resistance
X
Branding
21. OD
Techniques at
X
X
X
54
Work
22. A Clash of
Cultures
X
23. What’s Your
University’s
Culture?
X
X
X
24. Find the
Artifacts
X
25. Back-to-Back
Change
X
26. Social Media
Dilemma
X
X
27.Develop Your
Professional
Code
X
X
X
28.
Communication
Breakdown
X
X
29. Diversity
Rocks
X
X
30. You Can’t
Handle the
Truth
X
X
X
X
31. The Ethics of
the Climb
X
X
X
X
32.
Mindmapping
X
X
33. Could I Be a
Whistleblower?
X
X
X
34.
Sustainability
Practice at Work
X
X
X
35. Who Do I
Fire?
X
X
36. What Are My
Values
X
X
37. Team
Survival
Simulation
X
X
X
38. Federal
Intelligence
Simulation
X
X
X
X