Factor affecting on Employees Engagement in Ongoing Pandemic with Respect to Brokerage House
Group members
Muhammad Arsalan / Saubbyal Abbas / khalid Hussain / Muhammad Taha Anwar.
Introduction
Background
Problem Statement
Research Questions
Literature Review
Empirical Review Table
Contact Information
1. Forrester, J.W. (1971). World Dynamics. Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
2. Northwest Earth Institute. (2016). A systems thinking model: The iceberg. Adapted from Escalated Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.nwei.org/assets/A-SYSTEMSTHINKING-MODEL-The-Iceberg.pdf
3. , P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Random House, London.
4. Wolstenholme, E.F. (1990). Systems Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Program MBA E (E)
Methods Discussion
. Need for Design Thinking at IMS
Design thinking at IMS is about the integration of people with core business processes,
technology and systems. The institute should find ways to make collaboration among different
department and should make them team collaborators rather than competitors.
Proposed Design Thinking Process
Empathize: At IMS observation, engagement and watch & listen approaches should be used to
understand the people and their issues.
Define: The goal of the Define mode is to craft a meaningful and actionable problem statement.
Ideate: After analyzing the root cause of the problem and understanding people issue, the best
solution to the problem has been generated as Collaboration among departments. They should
work like team collaborators rather than as competitors.
Prototype: In order to avoid losing all of the innovation potential that has been generated
through ideation, a process of considered selection is recommended. Through this, multiple
ideas should be forwarded into prototyping, thus maintaining innovation potential.
Test: The Test mode is when feedback is required, about the prototypes that have been created,
from users and have another opportunity to gain empathy for the people you are designing for.
Four Steps To Manage Learning At IMS
 Create an inventory of learning practices and styles.
 Identify resources allocated to different learning practices and styles.
 Determine the value created from the current allocation of learning investments/resources.
 Reallocate resources to maximize perfor
Results Conclusions
Success to the Successful Archetype at IMS The purpose of this study was to understand the perception of number one ranking of
The archetype determined to exist in IMS is the ‘success to the successful archetype’. In a success to the successful archetype, if one person or group (A) is given more resources, it has a higher likelihood of succeeding than
B (assuming they are equally capable). The initial success justifies devoting more resources, its success diminishes, further justifying more resource allocations to A (R2). The ‘success to the successful archetype’ suggests
IMS from departmental point of view and to identify the factors leading to
performance differences, disorientation and lack of coordination among various
that the performance of individuals or teams is often the result of the structure they are put in which forces them to compete for a limited resource such as more investment in technology and Quality Assurance Department at
departments. For this purpose system thinking approach was used to achieve the
IMS.
research questions and to know the root cause of the problem. The following
Self-fulfilling prophecies conclusions have been derived from this study:
Assuming all departments at IMS are equally capable, if quality assurance or IT department is given more resources, it has a higher likelihood of succeeding than other departments. That initial success of these departments
leading to top ranking of the Institute justifies devoting more resources to these two departments and robs other departments like academics, administration department of further resources. As other departments gets less  IIMS has the pressure to meet HEC requirements and to maintain the top ranking
resources, its success diminishes, which further reinforces the “bet on the winner” allocation of resources leading to further more resource allocation to Quality Assurance and IT departments. Therefore, this structure of the Institution, the management of IMS has been focusing more on Quality
continues to reinforce the success of one department, and the ignorance to the other departments at IMS as depicted in figure-1. Assurance and IT department thus ignoring the due attention required by other
departments.
Rewriting the Prophecies  The rising pressures to maintain the university ranking has involved much
As in most of the archetypes, managing a success to the successful situation requires looking at it from a more macro level and asking oneself about the larger goal within which the situation is embedded. In the case of IMS,
experimentation on various resources and use of latest technology thus forcing the
a larger goal that includes managing university’s top ranking and competing on international standards must guide the daily decisions. Therefore, the goal should be to provide an environment in which the full potential of all
departmental employees can be developed. Without the guidance of a larger goal, the structure will continue to dictate the actions which might adversely affect the Institution in the long run.
other departments to adopt to the rapidly changing circumstances.
 This creates more chaos and lack of coordination among various departments like
Creating Environments for Success administration and academics which are already striving for success due to
In reality it may not be the individuals, but the structure they are in that determines the winner. Therefore, IMS needs a competitive environment out of which the best candidates will somehow surface. Instead of diverting constant pressure and changes brought about by the top management.
resources and systematically letting other departments to suffer, the IMS management can focus all its efforts and resources on finding ways to build a supportive environment for success of all the departments and the  This leads to further deterioration of performance in the neglected departments
Institution as a whole. This requires greater collaboration among various departments for the smooth functioning of the university without letting any one particular department suffer. thus leading to even greater resource allocation to the already successful
A way to break out of the success to the Successful archetype is to get rid of its competitive structure and find ways to make team collaborators rather than competitors. The goal should not be to compete against each other departments at IMS.
and have one department win. They should mutually work together in the best interest of the organization rather than fighting for resources to maintain the top university ranking. The departments should collaborate with  Based on the current scenario, the Institute appears to have engaged into a success
each other, sharing ideas and information, and produce a design that may be a combination of innovations and contribution from each of the departments at IMS.
to the successful archetype where the major institutional resources are allocated to
Quality Assurance and Technology Department ignoring other parts of the
organization.
 The focus of the university on these two departments has made the management
ignorant of the pressures and problems faced by other departments like academic
and administration which play a vital role in the functioning of an educational
institution.
Add Conceptual Framework
Recommendations
 It is to be recommended in the study that a systems thinking approach is required at
the organizational level so that resources and efforts are used more collaboratively
Add Hypotheses Table rather than focusing on just a few departments leading to unwanted outcomes for
the rest of the Institute.
 Moreover, there is more need for open communication of goals and objectives at
all levels for greater acceptance of change and development.
 The rapid changes in the technology and quality maintenance requirement has built
up a constant pressure on the other departments thus adversely affecting their
performance which might in future lead to negative repercussions for the Institute
if not given due attention. Therefore, it has been recommended to go for
collaboration in all departments rather than creating competition among them.
References Acknowledgements