DOC PREVIEW
Berkeley UGBA 105 - Barings case outline

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

INTRODUCTIONPhD student here in OB. Research interests involve social network theory, organizational learning, technology. Specifically, how CMC/IT influences the way work gets done, the way info flows around orgsCame to Haas after careers in both non-profits and in high tech. Worked in the Internet sector for 5 yrs as a Sr. Product Mngr. First employee at a start-up later sold to Excite. Sixyears ago this week …Part of a research team working on a project that you’ll hear about later.DETAILS OF THE CASEI. Who were the key players in this case?a. How would you qualify their decision styles – leader/engineer?b. Were they acting as maximizers or satisficers?c. Were they using rational or behavioral models?KEY ISSUESII. What were the problems here? What got them here? a. What were the root causes?b. How would you describe the role of Nick Leeson in the collapse? i. What was the point of no return for Leeson?c. To what extent did culture, leadership, and structure contribute to Baring's demise? What were the implicit decisions of the higher-ups?i. When should they have known what was going on? (mtn. goat)ii. What changes might you have made to prevent the collapse?d. What was the role of corporate strategy and environmental uncertainty?e. LEADERSHIP: Just as you can’t say good mngmt/leadership is responsible for all the good stuff, you can’t pin all the bad stuff on a singleindividual – FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERRORANALYZING THE DECISIONSIII. What were some of the key decisions that were made, explicitly as well as implicitly – or not made (i.e. decisions made by default)?a. Identify relevant biases and heuristics?b. Evidence of escalation of commitment? Prospect theory?c. How would you describe the organizational/group level of decision making?i. What kinds of things were taken for granted? Why? How might you have changed this?ii. Lot of research on dissent in decision-making. Sherif (pt of light). Asch (lines).APPLICATIONIV. Correctives – what would you do?V. Apply to anything else? a. 9-11 hearingsb. choosing


View Full Document

Berkeley UGBA 105 - Barings case outline

Download Barings case outline
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Barings case outline and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Barings case outline 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?