MGT6A9 Scenario 06
General instructions in relation to this scenario and the assessment.
- As in the real world, even if the behaviour is visible, the reasons behind it may not be, so you need to read between the lines of the scenario and try to interpret what the motives and influences are for people in those situations.
- The scenarios don’t necessarily tell you what the problems are, they don’t tell you how many problems there are, or who has them, or the psychological theory/ies that might explain them. This is your job.
- In the formative submission we will tell you if the theories you’ve chosen are relevant to the case or not, but if what you’ve chosen is not the most relevant theory we can’t tell you what the most appropriate theory is. That has to be your judgment. If you argue it well it is possible to effectively use a theory that the examiners wouldn’t normally choose.
- In most cases you’ll have to adapt the theory – a lot of behaviour doesn’t fall neatly into the compartments provided
- In absolutely all cases, you absolutely have to demonstrate your ability to think critically about the psychological concept you’re using. If you don’t you will lose marks. For example, if you mention Dixon (1976) you have to also say something along the lines of ‘Dixon’s original work was on leadership incompetence in the military, but his ideas seem to apply well to the world of business’.
- In the recommendations you can bring in other theory if appropriate, which hasn’t been suggested in the scenario.
- Everything crucial in the scenarios involves theory introduced on this module, but if you feel strongly that another theory we haven’t studied is relevant then feel free to bring it in, but check with your lecturer first.
Scenario
Mark, 22, new Team Leader in GMT Ltd, a sports competition events company, has nearly all of Jack Welch’s 4 E’s, except he’s not a very good energizer. He has been given a jacket with ‘Boss’ on the back, a lanyard, a branded baseball cap and a company car, straight out of university where he had organized several sporting events with limited success (something he glossed over in the interview). GMT provides a communications hub for participating teams and governing bodies, a recruitment section for referees and other officials, and advice and services for prize-giving ceremonies (lights, fireworks, stages, trophies etc).
Mark’s team operates in the London area. His team of 8 see him as a Boy Scout, someone who means well but just can’t transfer his vision to anyone else. From Mark’s perspective he views his team members privately with contempt, they’re old, jaded and worn out from years of being out in all weathers, organizing competitions for sports they don’t understand or even like and spending way too much time in the pub. Within the team they are all specialists in their own areas – ticketing, recruitment, sound systems, publicity etc, and are willing to learn more and help each other out. What they don’t like is change, they’d been working together for years quite happily until Mark came along. What Mark wants to do now is to galvanize his team so that they show more enthusiasm, are more outgoing, more dynamic and basically better ambassadors for the company. To work beyond the job. Competition is tough out there.
Mark brings in a new initiative, with the permission of the UK head of HR, Bill. It involves having teams within teams competing against each other, members are put into pairs for each event, each with a particular objective set beforehand. The pair to reach its objective most effectively gets a bonus of £300. For the first three events under this new system performance is noticeably better, more efficient, generates more contacts for the company and increases motivation. The fourth event is problematic – Geoff and Harriet (GH) tell Mark that Karen and Lincoln (KL) only won because they had ignored safety regulations and had probably sabotaged Imran and Jeanne’s (IJ) work. There is no proof of any of this, Mark had supervised the event, so he ignores the complaints, and sees the improved performance as very useful for his own advancement. The fifth event is a disaster. GH won the £300 but KL complained that GH’s objective was set at too easy a level, and that GH had been a bit aggressive towards IJ. But performance is up and this makes Mark very happy.
GH come to Mark’s office one day and tell him, ‘Look, we’re thinking of leaving, we’ve enjoyed so much working with you, it’s been fabulous and stimulating and you’re such an imaginative and effective boss, but we were approached by TME [a rival firm] last week and they want us to start with them immediately – they have an important event next weekend. But could you write us a reference please?’
—————————————————————————————————————-
My part is going to be the Analysis of Mark
Jack Welch’s 4 E’s (not allowed to use as theory but can mention)
Energy – Individuals with energy love to “go, go, go.” These people possess boundless energy and get up every day ready to attack the job at hand. High energy people move at 95 miles-per-hour in a 55 mile-per-hour world.
Energizers – know how to spark others to perform. They outline a vision and get people to carry it out. Energizers know how to get people excited about a cause or a crusade. They are selfless in giving others the credit when things go right, but quick to accept responsibility when things go awry.
Edge – Those with edge are competitive types. They know how to make the really difficult decisions, such as hiring, firing and promoting, never allowing the degree of difficulty to stand in their way.
Execute – The key to the entire model. Without measurable results, the other “E’s” are of little use. Executers recognize that activity and productivity are not the same and are capable of converting energy and edge into action and results.
Psychological concept
Mark used his skills of emotional intelligence in a dark manipulative way for example….
Say: lack of empathy FOR EXAMPLE: “line from scenario”
These are the only theories allowed to use:
- Psychological contract
- Personality testing
- MBTI
- Development of the brain in adolescence until 25 years old on average
- Definition of adulthood
- Personality theory timeline (especially Asch Milgram Zimbardo)
- Belbin test
- Behaviourist approach
- Cognitive approach
- Learning styles concept
- Learning styles model/ tests: VAK KOLB or H&M
- Steger’s work and learning inventory + discussion
- Links between economic indicators and suicide
- Job crafting
- Bill Mul’s superchickens – teams and society
- Defining intelligence and IQ
- Binet – simon IQ test
- WAIS v. Standord Binet
- Location of intelligence in the brain
- Menkes on executive intelligence
- Language and gender differences – political correctness and language
- Historical developments in gender differences
- Current issues for women around the world
- WEF gender gap
- Neuroscience and Neuribiology (Paul Zak)
- Goleman’s context and components of EI
- Multiple intelligences
- moral intelligence/development: Kohlberg and Heinz
- the dark side of El
- Dark side of leadership
- Dixon’s leadership (1976) leadership incompetence model
- Matsuda (2010) toxic leadership
- Erickson et al (2015) destructive leadership – questionnaire
- Coping
- Stress
- Effects of stress
- Decision-making: Kahneman’s ideaas
