Jane Kravitz Case Study

1543 Words7 Pages

1. Are self-evaluations being hurt?

Jane Kravitz has a positive core self-evaluation and thinks she can get any job done. Jane was informed by Chuck Taylor that Lyndon Brooks’ performance is not up to the mark. But, Jane thought that she was a good manager who knew to cajole, nurture and direct her subordinates and hence had a high self-esteem. She thought that she could handle Lyndon and tried to negotiate with him. She showed a high degree of agreeableness while handling him. But she did not get a positive response from Lyndon and hence her self-esteem got hurt and she adjusted too much to accommodate Lyndon. Also, she was confident that her team would fulfill the strategic objectives, however due to the behavior of Lyndon, she could
…show more content…
But Jane made him sign a contract which hurt him very much. All these hurt his self-evaluations.
2. Are attribution errors present?
Attribution theory explains the ways in which we can judge the people. In the given case initially we are given only Jane’s perspective which biases against Brook which made us have a preconceived assumption of Brook. The same happens when we see the Brooks part of the story.
Initially he thought Jane will support him always but when Jane made him sign the contract he blamed her which we can consider a fundamental attribution error because he held Jane responsible but actually Jane was under the pressure of higher management. She had to save herself if Brook fail to deliver which was very much prominent from his track record.
Brook has the characteristics of blaming external factors for his failures like inexperienced team and unfavorable field of work for his inefficiency and inability to adapt to the situation. Also he only praised himself for the successes he achieved in the past. These contributes to the multiple attribution errors we see in the case.
3. Are perceptual distortions playing a
Open Document