Anonymous student exam script 01

The following text is an authentic, anonymized student script submitted in the spring 2020 SPÅ 2901
exam. Apart from the grade awarded by the examiners, no other information is provided. For
reasons of personal data security, there is no audit trail that would make it possible to identify the
writer of this text.

Overall and final grade awarded for this script: A

Script begins here:

1 Essay A
In this essay, I will make an interpretation that sheds light on Andersen and Haus view of the situation
they are in, the Prime Minister’s perception of her role, and the communication behavior between the
different parties in the critical incident at hand. I will utilize the following dimensions: The
uncertainty dimension (Hofstede, 2003), relationships vs rules (Trompenaars, 2011) and assertiveness
(House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).
The first dimension I will consider is the uncertainty avoidance dimension by Hofstede (2003).
This dimension expresses to what degree different people feel discomfort when confronted with
ambigous or unknown sitiuations. Maja Andersen’s focus on preventive measures makes it clear that
she has a high degree of uncertainty avoidance. Silje Haus, on the other hand, reveals her low
uncertainty avoidance attitude with her short planning horizon and general willingness to face the
unkown. Andersen starts off the conversation by stating the steep increase in incidents of the virus
abroad. She argues that ”we have to respond to the situation”, in order to reduce the risk of infection
from foreign tourists. This shows her inclination towards high certainty avoidance. While Haus agrees
with the facts and numbers that Andersen presents, her view on how to respond to them reveals her
low uncertainty avoidance trait. Haus says that ”we have things under control”, and believes that the
existing government measures are sufficient to counter the situation. Their contrasting views are
further expressed when both of them states their planning horizons. Andersen is quoted as
saying: ”But we’re not just discussing the situation of today” and states that ”[the policy
recommendations] have to be effective for next week, next month and through to the end of the year”.
This goes hand in hand with her high certainty avoidance trait. Meanwhile, Haus expresses her
low certainty avoidance trait when she says that ”we should wait and see how things develop”.
The next dimension I am going to utilize is relationships vs rules by Trompenaars (2011). This
dimension has two extremes; universalism and particularism. People who are purely universalist, look
for universal rules, while people who are purely particalurist focus on the exceptional nature of
the circumstances at hand. The Prime Minister clearly shows a degree of universalism in her
perception the problems at hand. This influences her leadership role. Before Andersen has had a
chance to present her arguments, the Prime Minister concludes that they, at the time being, are ”very
drastic”. She further shows her universalist inclination after Andersen states that ”this is an

1
exceptional situation and it calls for an exceptional response, and the Prime Minister simply declines
Andersen’s particularist argument. To make her view even clearer, the Prime Minister says that they
will use the ”usual standards for such public health issues”. In brief, the Prime Minister
percieves her role as an upholder of universalism.
Lastly, I will consider the assertiveness dimension (House et al., 2004). This dimension
measures the importance of having their ideas and opinions listened to and recognised by others. All
participants show their inclination towards high assertiveness throughout both conversations. In the
conversation between Haus and Andersen, Haus doesn’t stop arguing her view until it’s clear that
Andersen has understood and recognised Haus’ view by saying ”I’ll get the paperwork with our
recommendations ready for the Prime Minister”. In the conversation between the Prime Minister and
Andersen, it becomes apparent that Andersen is the most assertive of them all. Throughout their
conversation, Andersen counters the Prime Minister’s views and even interupts her. To make
matters even more apparant, Andersen is described as being pleased with the having made her point.
Using the dimensions presented by Hofstede (2003), Trompenaars (2011), and House et al.
(2004), we have identified possible reasons why Andersen and Haus view the problems arising from a
pandemic differently. Their different outlook on uncertainty avoidance explains their different attitude
towards preventive action. The Prime Minister’s perception of her leadership role is explained by her
inclination towrads universalism. In general, the conversations are influenced by the participants
assertiveness.

References
Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind :
Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Profile Books.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. SAGE
Publications.
Trompenaars, F. (2011). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity
in global business. John Murray Press.

2
2 Ethical Awareness

SHORT BUSINESS REPORT

To: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

From: MERCHANDISING DIRECTOR HELGE MYHRE
Subject: SALVATION ARMY PROPOSITION
Date: MONDAY 27TH APRIL 2020
CC:

1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive consequentialist analysis for the immediate
and very short-term consequences, as well as consider the medium to long-term consequences.

2.0 Stakeholders
There are several stakeholders we must consider when analyzing the issue at hand. These are, in my
opinion, the most important ones:
- Our shareholders
- The influencer involved in the scandal
- The needy
- The Salvation Army
- Our customers

3.0 Analysis of the Short-Term Consequences

The course of action we choose to undertake, will have short-term consequences for the stakeholders
mentioned in 2.0 Stakeholders. These consequences are detailed in the following two chapters.
3.1 Short-Term Consequences for Our Stakeholders
3.1.1 Our Shareholders
By accepting, we will short-term avoid a scandal that might heavily reduce the stock
price, in the short-term. It is therefore in our shareholder’s best interest to accept, in
the short-term.
3.1.2 The Influencer Involved in The Scandal
As a high-end brand, we rely heavily on influencers to promote our products. We need
to make sure that they feel welcome and safe as brand ambassadors. If we accept the
proposition, the influencer will seem abandoned by us. This will hurt the influencer,
who will bear the responsibility on their own.
3.1.3 The Needy
By rejecting the proposition, we will deprive the world’s

3
 needy of much needed support. In edge cases, our support might be the difference
between life and death. It is clear that the needy will be better off if we accept the
proposition.
3.1.4 The Salvation Army
If we accept, the Salvation Army will gain in two ways. First, they will receive much
needed donations. Secondly, since donations of high quality are sold to fund their
charity, they will be known for selling better quality products at their outlets.
3.1.5 Our Customers
Lastly, our customers will be at a loss since our unsold products will be available at
discount at the Salvation Army. This is obviously a short-term loss for our customers.

4.0 Medium to Long-Term Consequences

Medium to long-term the consequences might be different than the short-term consequences. As a
high-end brand, our most valuable asset is our branding. My judgement is that we should do whatever
we can to protect it. This will be most beneficial for our shareholders, long term. The influencer
involved in the scandal will most likely have no issues long-term. Finally, our customers will
obviously always be at a loss when we let products be sold at a discounted price elsewhere.

5.0 Recommendations
5.1 Short-Term
My recommendation is to immediately accept the proposition from the Salvation Army. This
will save us from a scandal that might be detrimental to our brand.
5.2 Long-Term
As we go forward with our partnership with the Salvation Army, I propose we do the
following long-term.
1) Use the good-will from our partnership in future marketing campaigns.
2) Explore the possibility of removing branding from unsold goods, prior to donation.
3) Aim for better production planning in order to reduce the surplus production.