You are on page 1of 3

Sagar Bansal

Case#1-David Shorter- Individual
MW 11:00am

After having graduated from Queen’s College, in September 2001, Bob Chen began
working as a Junior Staff accountant at New Enterprise group. The company had a
process for promotion. In 2003, Bob passed his accounting examination and became
an audit senior to Jane Klink. In January 2004 David met Bob. David suggested
future plans for Bob. He wanted Bob to continue his further auditing experience and
hence in the interest of the company attract Hong Kong clients. But Bob was more
inclined to work in tax. He made his intensions on working in tax very clear to
David. Instead of his repeated requests he was not heard until a final meeting where
David finally agreed. Bob was finally granted permission to become a tax specialist
but with conditions to do accounting and fill the gaps. But just when everything was
going on well, all of a sudden Bob decided that he could not work for Mike and
wanted to resign. David believed that Chen would have a great impact in the
company but this was only his perception and his way of looking at things but David
never thought about the interests of Bob. So now Bob begins to see limitations at
this company as he is not allowed to choose his specialization. He feels his career
growth was being compromised.
1. Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene (Two Factor) Theory:
Motivation to carry out your responsibilities leads to a term called job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction clearly was where Bob was not getting his area of specialization
which would keep him motivated in his job and hence also build his career.
2. Attribution bias:
Fundamental attribution error is nothing but the cultural differences we face in the
world. Here Mike believed that he understood all about Bob as he had this idea of
his culture more than anyone else. Most of them in the company believed that Chen

II. They want him to work in the audit side and help attract the business from their Hong Kong clients. 3. 4. Prescriptions: How can the problems be corrected? I. He also wanted Bob to accept whatever the company offered him and this was because he had developed a role schema. . Additionally. We can have David sit down with Bob and ask him for his side of the story. he should sit down with everyone directly involved to discuss the issue and take a step back to look at the problem as a whole. The managers were denying him an opportunity to work in the area which Bob is interested in which is tax. so if they invite an outside perspective to mediate the talks and give their recommendation on what should be done that would meet the objective. Social Perception: Joe had a preconceived image about Bob as he heard people talking about him and hence developed a personal schema and used this to compare the performance of Bob with an ideal employee who works for the company. Additionally. Evaluating people on objective factors can be difficult. Partial Reinforcement: Making false promises and not fulfilling what someone expects is what was happening in the case of Bob.does not understand things due to cultural difference even though he has been in Canada since longtime. if they ask for people who work at the office that were not directly involved to give their opinions on what they had seen around the office this would give more views on the situation. But then they also partially reinforce his desires but with a condition.

by thinking differently the entire office may be able to move forward without as many stereotypes. This could be done by have a training session on creative thinking so that going organization.Sagar Bansal Case#1-David Shorter. They should think creatively to eliminate stereotypical ideas of the rest of the staff. Therefore. the company needs to look at their chain of command and communication to ensure that even if Shorter is out of the office someone is in charge. MW 11:00am 9/30/2013 Going forward. IV. forward they solve problems creatively as an .Individual Outline III.