Hayden Shockley

OGL 300
Simulation : Crisis 2
April 12, 2020

1. Report the metrics (Customer, Employee and shareholder satisfaction percentages). How did
your team do? What could have been done better?

Customer satisfaction was 34%, Employee satisfaction was 47%, and shareholder satisfaction
was 27%. This was consistent from last week, because our employee satisfaction was the highest
of the three. This is what I personally was shooting for, because as the CHRO, I want our
employees to feel valued, and I wanted to invest heavily into making them feel like we were not
going to leave them out to dry amidst this crisis. Overall, we did a good job of balancing the
different outcomes of our decision as far as this crisis went. We wanted to empathize with the
individuals affected by the plane crash, but also make sure we took care of all of our employees,
especially the maintenance crew. I think we could have done a better job of communicating out
concerns with each other, land have a more clearly defined goal going into this crisis. Next time,
I think we will discuss how we want the outcome to look, and communicate our individual
strategies with each other.

2.  How did your individual decisions compare to those of your teammates?

Personally, I was heavily invested in making sure we did not blame the maintenance crew as a
whole for the failure of this particular incident. There was a disgruntled maintenance employee,
but I made sure that we did not let that one person speak for all of our maintainers. In addition to
that, I wanted to cooperate with investigators and make sure we expressed that we were going to
do everything we could to make this right with the public. Again, as I stated in the last question,
my group and I need to do a better job of explaining our own individual objectives to each other,
so we will all be on the same page next time. Overall, I believe we accomplished what we set out
to do, which is make sure our employees and customers are prioritized.

3. Which theory or theories (in Ch 1-7, 14) you have studied so far are applicable to this crisis?
Explain. 

I think the LMX theory is most applicable to this situation. Because we had an issue with the
press trying to blame maintenance for this problem, it was important for us as leaders to
communicate well, and ensure there was a positive exchange between management and the
maintenance teams. There was an issue with a maintainer that didn’t feel valued, and had
implicated mangers before in certain wrong-doing in the past. This could have been alleviated by
a strong relationship, and positive communication between that individual and the manager. The
core of these issues could have been resolved if leadership had a strong trusting relationship with
followers, and clear defined goals and objectives were established.

4. What is your demonstrated leadership style in this week’s game? Have you used this style in
your personal life or in your job as a leader? Give an example.
My demonstrated leadership style for this week was Directive Leader. As a veteran, I have
definitely used this leadership style in the past. In that line of work, it is very important to have
unquestioned followers, and come across as authoritarian because most of the situations we train
for are life and death. That comes with subject matter expertise, and earned respect from the
followers. In the military, when you are put in charge of a situation, you have to have full control
and compliance from the followers. This means, right or wrong, they must trust you to lead them,
and make the right decision, because it is their job to comply. I do not particularly like using this
style, but in certain situations, it is without question the most effective leadership style to use.