**This case analysis scored a low A (23/25). It does a good job with the introduction. It answers each of the questions posed. It also does a nice job applying the perceptual biases from the text and class to the case. The biggest deduction in its score came as a result of its conclusion. Note that although it provides a nice summary of points raised in the analysis, it does not include a description of generalizable lessons learned or take home messages from the case. A complete conclusion needs to go beyond the case.
The two Jensen Shoes Case studies combine into a classic tale of two sets of perception and bias errors leading to differing interpretations of the same events. The protagonists are Lyndon Brooks (Brooks), an employee, and Jane Kravitz (Kravitz), his new supervisor. An additional character is Chuck Taylor (Taylor), a vice president who is initially the direct supervisor for both Brooks and Kravitz, until he reorganizes his department and has Brooks report to Kravitz. When reading each case individually, you can see how each person came to their specific point of view. The case from Kravitz’s point of view is that she inherits an employee who is not doing enough work to meet a deadline. The case from Brooks’ point of view is that he has had unreasonable demands made of him immediately after a demotion. Each person committed perceptive errors due to shortcuts in judgment and made assumptions based on biases that led to incorrect decisions. This paper will examine the assumptions Kravitz and Brooks each made about the other, and at what stage of their working relationship the assumptions were determined. Analysis of the Jensen Shoes Case will explore specific perception and bias errors made by each person. Finally, using knowledge of perception and individual decision making, suggestions as to how Kravitz and Brooks could have reacted better to the situation will follow. Analysis
Brooks initially assumed, based on his work with Kravitz in committees, that Kravitz would be a good change of pace from Taylor because she would be more reasonable. Brooks felt that Taylor had been unreasonable because Taylor did not support Brooks with appropriate staffing or time to achieve his strategic objectives. Brooks’ assumption, in his mind, was proven incorrect after the initial rollout meeting and his subsequent one-on-one meeting with Kravitz. In the initial rollout meeting, Kravitz revealed that she had assigned Brooks the same two markets he was assigned by Taylor: the Latino and African American vertical markets. Brooks felt that Kravitz stereotyped him by assigning these markets to him without discussing it with him first, which is a partially accurate assumption: Kravitz assigned him the markets not because he is African American but because he did them for Taylor and she assumes he knows them well. Brooks’ partially correct assumption causes him to lose respect for Kravitz and behave in a less motivated manner. In the subsequent one-on-one meeting, Kravitz demurred about changing Brooks’ assignment until after he completed his special project. Brooks assumed that Kravitz was simply being unreasonable, which was an accurate assumption, and further motivated Brooks to look for a way out of the situation. Later in the relationship, Kravitz asked matter-of-factly “Are you saying that you don’t think you’ll be able to carry the load?”, but Brooks did not answer with a simple “no”, and Kravitz moved to end the conversation without changing Brooks’ goals. Brooks assumed he had been successful in maintaining Kravitz as a potential ally and job reference, and did begin working on his special project, but did not get any closer to starting on his strategic objectives. Kravitz’s Assumptions
Kravitz’s initial assumption was that Brooks was a potential star in the company and that with her leadership Brooks could excel. Early on in their relationship, Kravitz...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document