Leadership · Influence · Change
Leading People
& Change
A complete course companion – all frameworks, cases, simulators, buzzwords, and your Ready Reckoner in one place.
13 Sessions
4 Modules
5 Cases
2 Simulators
Sessions 1–2
Managing Oneself
Drucker · Self-awareness · Feedback analysis
1Session 3
Self-Management in Practice
Mike Miller case · Person-job fit · Power base
3Sessions 4–5
EI & Leadership
Goleman · 5 EI components · Wolfgang Keller
4Session 6
The Six Leadership Styles
Goleman · Climate drivers · Style selector simulator
6Session 7
Managing Your Boss
Gabarro & Kotter · Mutual expectations · No surprises
7Session 8
The Art of Persuasion
Conger · Four-step framework · Rhetoric & logic
8Sessions 9–10
Leading Change
Kotter 8 Steps · Power Dynamics · Marie Jackson
9Sessions 11–12
Group Presentations
Assessed presentation sessions – no exam reading
11Session 13
Recruitment & Motivation
Managing Your Career · Job design · HBS note
13Reference
Integrated Frameworks
5-step exam method · cross-case matrix · framework selector
★Reference
Buzzwords & Concepts
Power phrases · sentence starters · by framework
○Reference
Ready Reckoner
Full cheat sheet – all frameworks & cases
⚡
Sessions 1–2
Module I
Managing Oneself
Drucker’s foundational insight: knowledge workers must manage themselves. Success in the knowledge economy comes to those who know their strengths, their values, and how they best perform.
Accordions:
Overview – Why Self-Management Matters▼
History’s great achievers – a Napoléon, a da Vinci, a Mozart – always managed themselves. That is what made them great. Now, most knowledge workers must learn the same skill. We will have to learn to develop ourselves, to place ourselves where we can make the greatest contribution, and to stay mentally alert and engaged during a 50-year working life.
OB Framework (Maguire, Session 1)Organisational Behaviour operates at three levels: (1) the Individual – attitudes and values; (2) the Group – teams, negotiation, decision-making; (3) the Organisation – change and leadership. Managing Oneself operates primarily at Level 1.
Exam framingWhen a case shows a leader who is ineffective or failing, always start your diagnosis at the individual level: do they know their strengths, how they perform, and what they value? If not, no amount of strategy will fix the problem.
The 5 Self-Knowledge Questions▼
Q1: What are my strengths?
Use feedback analysis: write down expected outcomes before acting, compare to actual results after 9–12 months. Reveals true strengths and delusions. Concentrate on strengths – it takes far less energy to improve from first-rate to excellent than from incompetence to mediocrity.
Q2: How do I perform?
Reader vs. Listener (Eisenhower = reader; LBJ = listener). Team worker vs. loner. Decision-maker vs. adviser. Learn by reading, writing, doing, teaching, or talking. Do NOT try to change yourself – work to improve the way you perform.
Q3: What are my values?
The “mirror test”: what kind of person do I want to see in the mirror? Values are the ultimate test – not ethics, but what you find worth devoting your life to. Strengths and performance style must be compatible with values.
Q4: Where do I belong?
By your mid-20s you should know your answers to Q1–3 and can identify where you do NOT belong. Then any opportunity, offer, or assignment can be answered: “Yes, but structured this way.”
Q5: What should I contribute?
Ask: What does the situation require? Given my strengths and values, how can I make the greatest contribution? What results have to be achieved to make a difference? Set concrete targets with a time horizon of 18 months.
Use feedback analysis: write down expected outcomes before acting, compare to actual results after 9–12 months. Reveals true strengths and delusions. Concentrate on strengths – it takes far less energy to improve from first-rate to excellent than from incompetence to mediocrity.
Q2: How do I perform?
Reader vs. Listener (Eisenhower = reader; LBJ = listener). Team worker vs. loner. Decision-maker vs. adviser. Learn by reading, writing, doing, teaching, or talking. Do NOT try to change yourself – work to improve the way you perform.
Q3: What are my values?
The “mirror test”: what kind of person do I want to see in the mirror? Values are the ultimate test – not ethics, but what you find worth devoting your life to. Strengths and performance style must be compatible with values.
Q4: Where do I belong?
By your mid-20s you should know your answers to Q1–3 and can identify where you do NOT belong. Then any opportunity, offer, or assignment can be answered: “Yes, but structured this way.”
Q5: What should I contribute?
Ask: What does the situation require? Given my strengths and values, how can I make the greatest contribution? What results have to be achieved to make a difference? Set concrete targets with a time horizon of 18 months.
Drucker’s core argumentSuccessful careers are not planned. They develop when people are prepared for opportunities because they know their strengths, their method of work, and their values. Knowing where one belongs can transform an ordinary but competent person into an outstanding performer.
Performance Style: Reader vs. Listener▼
| Reader | Listener |
|---|---|
| Processes written information first, then discusses | Prefers verbal briefings, asks questions in person |
| Example: Eisenhower as Supreme Commander – brilliant press conferences from written briefings | Example: LBJ as Senator – superb listener; failed when required to read reports as President |
| Fails when forced to listen and respond in real time | Fails when required to read and absorb written material |
Exam trapA leader failing in a new role is not necessarily incompetent – they may be operating in the wrong performance mode. Diagnose the mismatch before prescribing a solution.
How do I learn?
Learning styles: by reading (Churchill wrote everything down), by writing, by doing, by listening, or by talking. Identify your method and design your work accordingly. Managers who learn by talking need an audience – they are not being inconsiderate, they are processing out loud.
Values, Second Careers & Contribution▼
The Mirror Test (Values)
The test: what kind of person do I want to see when I look in the mirror in the morning? A great German diplomat resigned in 1906 rather than preside over a dinner for Edward VII – his values would not permit it. Values are not the same as ethics – they are what you believe is worth devoting your working life to.
Value conflicts in organisationsWhen an organisation’s values conflict with a person’s values, the person must either change what they value (unlikely) or find a different organisation. This is not a failure – it is self-awareness in action.
Second Half of Your Life
Knowledge workers outlive organisations. Plan for a “second career” – not as a retirement plan, but as an act of reinvention. Options: start a new career in a different organisation; develop a parallel career (e.g., working for a non-profit); or become a social entrepreneur. Begin before you need to – the time to prepare for your second career is before you are forced into it.
Exam applicationUse Drucker whenever a case involves a new manager struggling with identity, a mid-career transition, or a leader who seems out of place in their organisation. The diagnosis: one or more of the 5 questions has not been answered honestly.
Key Article & Reference▼
Managing Oneself – Peter DruckerHBR, January 2005 · Reprint R0501K
Managing Oneself – Mind Map SummaryYouTube · Drucker visual summary
How to cite in the examCite as: Drucker, P.F. (2005), ‘Managing Oneself’, Harvard Business Review, January, Reprint R0501K. In text: “Applying Drucker’s (2005) framework for self-management...”
Session 3
Case: Mike Miller
Module I
Self-Management in Practice
Person-job fit, person-organisation fit, power dynamics. Miller’s story: what happens when a new MBA fails to read the organisational landscape, map power dynamics, or manage upward.
Accordions:
Person-Job Fit & Person-Org Fit▼
Self-management requires not just knowing yourself (Drucker) but choosing the right organisational context for your strengths and values. Two dimensions of fit matter:
| Person-Job Fit | Person-Org Fit |
|---|---|
| Match between an individual’s knowledge, skills, and abilities and the specific demands of the job | Match between an individual’s values, beliefs, and personality and the organisation’s culture and values |
| Misfit: boredom, underperformance, disengagement | Misfit: ethical conflicts, value clashes, feeling like an outsider despite competence |
| Drucker Q4: “Where do I belong?” (job level) | Drucker Q3: “What are my values?” (culture level) |
Mike Miller’s dual misfitMiller had both a person-job misfit (expected strategic work, got operational firefighting) and a person-org misfit (expected meritocratic culture, found political landscape). Neither mismatch was diagnosed before joining.
Case: Mike Miller (A) – Frontier Finance▼
Context
Mike Miller, Harvard MBA, joins Frontier Finance as national small business operations manager. After 6 months, he faces a performance review with Wynn Mason, SVP Operations. He has been moved to the basement, is caught between Mason and Mack Rogers (territorial dispute), has made modest operational improvements but feels isolated and unsupported.
Diagnosis: What went wrong?
Failure 1: Did not map the political landscape before joining
Mason and Rogers had been in a year-long territorial war over small business loan servicing. Miller stepped into the middle without knowing this. He became “the ball” in their kick-ball game.
Failure 2: Failed to understand Mason’s work style
Mason was a Listener and hands-on manager who wanted frequent touch-points. Miller assumed Mason would “magically know” what he needed. He under-communicated upward, creating an information vacuum Mason filled with suspicion.
Failure 3: Did not build a power base
Miller had no lateral relationships, no allies, and no informal network. He relied exclusively on formal authority (his title) – which in a political organisation counts for very little.
Failure 4: Violated unwritten rules
Frontier’s sacred goal was cost minimisation. Miller’s instinct to advocate for his people (e.g., Williams relocation costs) violated the cultural norm. His MBA-level idealism clashed with the organisation’s operating reality.
Mason and Rogers had been in a year-long territorial war over small business loan servicing. Miller stepped into the middle without knowing this. He became “the ball” in their kick-ball game.
Failure 2: Failed to understand Mason’s work style
Mason was a Listener and hands-on manager who wanted frequent touch-points. Miller assumed Mason would “magically know” what he needed. He under-communicated upward, creating an information vacuum Mason filled with suspicion.
Failure 3: Did not build a power base
Miller had no lateral relationships, no allies, and no informal network. He relied exclusively on formal authority (his title) – which in a political organisation counts for very little.
Failure 4: Violated unwritten rules
Frontier’s sacred goal was cost minimisation. Miller’s instinct to advocate for his people (e.g., Williams relocation costs) violated the cultural norm. His MBA-level idealism clashed with the organisation’s operating reality.
What should Miller do?
Three options (exam-ready)
Option A: Stay and manage the situation – requires immediate upward management (schedule regular check-ins with Mason, be a reliable information source, understand his goals and constraints) and lateral alliance-building with Rogers.
Option B: Stay and escalate – document the structural conflict between Mason and Rogers and surface it to senior leadership. High risk, high reward.
Option C: Leave – person-org misfit is too deep. But time the exit to preserve reputation (do not leave during an ongoing project).
Option B: Stay and escalate – document the structural conflict between Mason and Rogers and surface it to senior leadership. High risk, high reward.
Option C: Leave – person-org misfit is too deep. But time the exit to preserve reputation (do not leave during an ongoing project).
Transferable lessonNew managers routinely overestimate the power of formal authority and underestimate the importance of informal relationships, political mapping, and upward management. The Mike Miller case is the course’s primary illustration of Drucker + Managing Your Boss + Power Dynamics applied simultaneously.
Power Dynamics in Organisations – Hill▼
New managers often discover that formal authority alone is insufficient to accomplish anything. Real influence comes from three sources of power that must be deliberately built:
1. Personal Power
Based on expertise, track record, and credibility. Earned through demonstrated competence. Takes time to build; cannot be delegated or granted by a job title.
2. Positional Power
Based on the formal role, its resources, and its centrality in information flows. Comes with the job but is limited – those above, below, and sideways must accept the legitimacy of your authority.
3. Relationship Power
Based on networks, alliances, and goodwill. The most durable form of power in organisations. Built through reciprocity: give before you need to take. Mike Miller had almost none of this.
Based on expertise, track record, and credibility. Earned through demonstrated competence. Takes time to build; cannot be delegated or granted by a job title.
2. Positional Power
Based on the formal role, its resources, and its centrality in information flows. Comes with the job but is limited – those above, below, and sideways must accept the legitimacy of your authority.
3. Relationship Power
Based on networks, alliances, and goodwill. The most durable form of power in organisations. Built through reciprocity: give before you need to take. Mike Miller had almost none of this.
Power is bilateralPower is not something that is simply wielded over others – it is a relationship. Subordinates, peers, and bosses all grant or withhold cooperation. This is why new managers who rely only on their formal authority routinely fail to get things done.
| Power Source | How to Build It | Miller’s Score |
|---|---|---|
| Personal | Deliver results; demonstrate expertise; build credibility through follow-through | Moderate – reduced costs 30–40% in field offices |
| Positional | Use role strategically; control information flows; build interdependencies | Weak – title was contested; Mason undercut his formal authority |
| Relationship | Invest in lateral relationships before you need them; understand what others want | Near zero – no allies; isolated in basement |
Building Your Power Base: Action Checklist▼
Based on Hill’s framework, every new manager should do the following in their first 90 days:
- Map the stakeholder landscape – who controls resources, information, and decisions? Who has informal influence beyond their title?
- Identify your boss’s style – Reader or Listener? Involved or delegating? What are their goals and constraints? (See Managing Your Boss, Session 7)
- Build lateral relationships proactively – invest in peers before you need their support. Find out what they care about.
- Demonstrate early wins – visible, credible results build personal power quickly and establish your credibility as a performer
- Understand the unwritten rules – every organisation has cultural norms that are never stated explicitly; violate them at your peril
- Diagnose the political conflicts – know which battles are pre-existing and make sure you do not become collateral damage
Exam applicationIn any case involving a new manager, leader, or executive struggling with authority or effectiveness, apply Hill’s three-power framework. Always ask: which source of power is missing, and how should it be built?
Sessions 4–5
Case: Wolfgang Keller
EI Profiler Simulator
Emotional Intelligence & Leadership
Goleman’s landmark thesis: EI is the sine qua non of leadership. IQ and technical skill are threshold competencies – what distinguishes great leaders from merely good ones is emotional intelligence.
Accordions:
What Makes a Leader? – Goleman’s Core Argument▼
Every businessperson knows a story about a highly intelligent, highly skilled executive who was promoted into a leadership position only to fail. And they know a story about someone with solid but not extraordinary intellectual abilities who soared. What explains the difference? Emotional intelligence.
The threshold argumentIQ and technical skills are “threshold capabilities” – entry-level requirements for any executive position. They get you to the table. But when Goleman studied competency models across 188 companies, nearly 90% of the difference between star performers and average ones in senior leadership positions was attributable to emotional intelligence factors, not cognitive abilities.
Critical exam point: EI is learnableEI is NOT fixed at birth. There is a genetic component, but research clearly demonstrates that EI can be learned and developed. It increases with age. The process requires sincere desire, deliberate practice, and feedback. A brief seminar will not help. Always say “EI can be developed” in the exam – never say it is innate.
Goleman’s EI model: the five components drive effective leadership. IQ and technical skills are threshold capabilities – they get you in the door but do not differentiate great leaders from average ones.
The 5 Components of EI – Detailed▼
1. Self-Awareness
The ability to recognise and understand your moods, emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on others. Hallmarks: self-confidence, realistic self-assessment, self-deprecating sense of humour. Self-aware people know when to ask for help and do not overpromise.
2. Self-Regulation
The ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods. Think before acting. Hallmarks: trustworthiness, integrity, comfort with ambiguity and change. Self-regulation enhances integrity and prevents impulsive bad decisions (Goleman’s point: most corporate scandals are failures of impulse control, not intelligence).
3. Motivation (will be revisited in Session 13)
A passion for work beyond money or status – a deeply embedded desire to achieve for the sake of achievement. Hallmarks: strong drive, optimism even in the face of failure, organisational commitment. These leaders raise the performance bar for everyone.
4. Empathy
The ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people and skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions. Three types (Maguire, Session 4): Cognitive (understand), Affective (respond), Somatic (feel). Critical for retaining talent, cross-cultural sensitivity, and coaching.
5. Social Skill
Proficiency in managing relationships and building networks; an ability to find common ground and build rapport. Hallmarks: effectiveness in leading change, persuasiveness, expertise in building and leading teams. Social skill is the culmination of the other four components – it is emotional intelligence put to work.
The ability to recognise and understand your moods, emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on others. Hallmarks: self-confidence, realistic self-assessment, self-deprecating sense of humour. Self-aware people know when to ask for help and do not overpromise.
2. Self-Regulation
The ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods. Think before acting. Hallmarks: trustworthiness, integrity, comfort with ambiguity and change. Self-regulation enhances integrity and prevents impulsive bad decisions (Goleman’s point: most corporate scandals are failures of impulse control, not intelligence).
3. Motivation (will be revisited in Session 13)
A passion for work beyond money or status – a deeply embedded desire to achieve for the sake of achievement. Hallmarks: strong drive, optimism even in the face of failure, organisational commitment. These leaders raise the performance bar for everyone.
4. Empathy
The ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people and skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions. Three types (Maguire, Session 4): Cognitive (understand), Affective (respond), Somatic (feel). Critical for retaining talent, cross-cultural sensitivity, and coaching.
5. Social Skill
Proficiency in managing relationships and building networks; an ability to find common ground and build rapport. Hallmarks: effectiveness in leading change, persuasiveness, expertise in building and leading teams. Social skill is the culmination of the other four components – it is emotional intelligence put to work.
| Component | Definition | Key Hallmark | In the Exam: Low Score Means... |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Awareness | Know your emotions and their effects | Realistic self-assessment | Blind spots; misread impact on others; poor decisions that violate own values |
| Self-Regulation | Control disruptive emotions | Trustworthiness & integrity | Impulsive decisions; hot-headed in crises; low trust from team |
| Motivation | Drive to achieve beyond expectations | Optimism despite setbacks | Short-term thinking; gives up when obstacles arise; no performance culture |
| Empathy | Understand others’ emotional makeup | Cross-cultural sensitivity | Talent leaves; coaching fails; cultural clashes in diverse teams |
| Social Skill | Build networks; manage relationships | Effectiveness in leading change | Change initiatives fail; cannot build coalitions; isolated despite good ideas |
What Leaders Really Do – Kotter▼
Kotter’s 2001 article makes a foundational distinction: management and leadership are different but complementary. Both are necessary. Strong leadership without strong management is no better – and sometimes worse – than the reverse.
| Management | Leadership |
|---|---|
| Coping with complexity | Coping with change |
| Planning & budgeting: sets targets, allocates resources | Setting a direction: develops a vision and strategies to achieve it |
| Organising & staffing: creates structure, delegates responsibility | Aligning people: communicates direction, builds coalitions and commitment |
| Controlling & problem-solving: monitors results, corrects deviations | Motivating & inspiring: appeals to needs, values, and emotions |
| Produces predictability and order | Produces change, often dramatic |
Key insight for the examThe more volatile and uncertain the environment, the more leadership is needed (relative to management). But even in change situations, management remains essential – without it, inspiration without execution produces chaos.
Exam trapDo not treat “leader vs. manager” as a personality type distinction. Kotter argues they are roles – the same person can and must play both roles at different times. The question is whether the organisation is producing enough leadership capacity, not whether someone is a “leader type.”
Case: Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-TAK▼
Context
Wolfgang Keller is the Managing Director of Königsbräu’s Ukrainian subsidiary, having turned it from €-2.9M losses to €+7M profits in three years. His Commercial Director, Dmitri Brodsky, is analytical, formal, and risk-averse – the opposite of Keller’s hands-on, relationship-driven style. Keller must decide whether to fire Brodsky or invest in developing him.
EI Diagnosis: Keller vs. Brodsky
| EI Component | Keller (MD) | Brodsky (Comm. Director) |
|---|---|---|
| Self-Awareness | High – knows he tends to over-control; laughed at the org chart caricature of himself | Low – unaware his formal style alienates distributors |
| Self-Regulation | Moderate – sometimes bypasses Brodsky impulsively; jumps in directly with customers | Low – avoids difficult conversations; lets problems fester |
| Empathy | High with customers; less with Brodsky – doesn’t invest in coaching him | Low – formal and distant; distributors feel undervalued |
| Social Skill | Very high externally – personally settled lawsuit on flight to Munich | Low – could have resolved the same lawsuit; chose not to invest the time |
What should Keller do?
Exam-ready recommendationKeller faces a classic coaching vs. exiting decision. The EI framework argues that EI can be developed – but only with sincere desire and deliberate effort from Brodsky. Keller must first assess Brodsky’s motivation to change (Q3 from Drucker). If Brodsky wants to develop, Keller should invest in structured coaching with clear milestones. If not, or if the Ukraine growth trajectory cannot wait for development time, exit is justified. Either way, Keller must also address his own bypassing behaviour – it undermines Brodsky’s authority and reinforces the problem.
Cite asWolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-TAK (A), HBS 498045. Always link to Goleman’s EI framework and Kotter’s leader vs. manager distinction. Keller is high on leadership; lower on management (systematic development of his team).
EI Profiler Simulator▼
How to use this simulatorRate yourself or a case protagonist on each EI component (1 = very low, 7 = very high). The profiler identifies your weakest component and explains which leadership styles it may be blocking. Use this to structure exam answers about leadership effectiveness gaps.
EI Profiler – Which components need development?
Self-Awareness 4
Self-Regulation 4
Motivation 4
Empathy 4
Social Skill 4
EI Profile
Balanced – Rate 4/7
Adjust the sliders to reflect your self-assessment. The profiler will highlight your weakest EI component and suggest which leadership styles it may be limiting.
Session 6
Style Selector Simulator
The Six Leadership Styles
Goleman’s most actionable framework: six distinct styles, each rooted in EI, each creating a different organisational climate. The best leaders switch fluidly between styles – like a golf pro choosing the right club for each shot.
Accordions:
The Core Argument – Style is Strategic Choice▼
Many managers assume leadership style is a function of personality – “I am an authoritative person.” Goleman’s research fundamentally challenges this. Style should be a strategic choice, adapted to the situation. The leader’s singular job is to get results, and different results in different situations require different styles.
The Climate Connection (Goleman, 2000)Leadership style shapes organisational climate. Climate, in turn, accounts for approximately 30% of financial performance. This is the most direct line Goleman draws between leadership behaviour and business results. In the exam, always connect style → climate → results.
Critical exam point: fluency, not one styleThe most effective leaders are skilled in multiple styles and have the flexibility to switch as circumstances dictate. Leaders who rely on only one or two styles – especially pacesetting and commanding – will damage climate over time regardless of short-term results.
The six styles derive from different EI competencies. Styles that draw on the full range of EI competencies tend to produce the most positive climate. Styles driven primarily by achievement motivation (pacesetting) or raw authority (commanding) without empathy produce the most negative climate.
The Six Climate Dimensions▼
Goleman measures climate along six dimensions. Together, these determine the “feel” of the working environment and its effect on motivation, creativity, and performance:
| Dimension | What it measures | Disrupted by |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility | Freedom to innovate without bureaucracy; employees feel trusted to use judgement | Commanding, pacesetting overuse |
| Responsibility | Sense of being accountable for outcomes; employees own their work | Commanding (removes autonomy) |
| Standards | High but realistic; employees feel challenged and capable | Pacesetting (sets unreachable bar) |
| Rewards | Accurate feedback; performance linked to recognition and advancement | Affiliative alone (only praise, no correction) |
| Clarity | Mission and values clear; people know how their work matters | Democratic overuse (endless meetings, no direction) |
| Commitment | Emotional engagement; people are proud of the organisation and want to contribute | Any style applied insensitively |
Exam applicationWhen diagnosing a leadership problem, name the specific climate dimensions being damaged and explain which style is causing it. “Keller’s pacesetting tendency is eroding Flexibility and Responsibility by bypassing Brodsky, who never develops ownership over decisions.”
The Six Styles – Visual Overview▼
Goleman’s Six Leadership Styles – Goleman (2000), ‘Leadership That Gets Results’, HBR, March–April, Reprint R00204
Each Style: Deep-Dive▼
1. Visionary (Authoritative) – “Come with me”
The visionary leader mobilises people toward a vision while allowing them freedom to choose their own means of achieving it. This style is the most broadly effective because it connects individuals’ work to a larger purpose, boosting clarity and commitment. The leader says “here is where we are going and why” – not “do this, this way, at this time.”
When it worksBusiness adrift and needing new direction. Turnaround situations where people need a clear purpose. Least effective when the leader is working with a team of experts who know more than he does – the “come with me” framing loses credibility.
2. Coaching – “Try this”
Focuses on personal development rather than immediate task completion. The coaching leader helps employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and connects them to long-term career goals. Message to employee: “I believe in you, I’m investing in you, and I expect your best efforts.” People rise to that challenge.
When it worksEmployee is motivated to improve; aware of their weaknesses; wants to grow. Least effective when employee is resistant to change, or when quick results are urgently needed.
3. Affiliative – “People come first”
Emotional bonds, harmony, and relationship-building are paramount. The affiliative leader gives ample positive feedback, builds a sense of belonging, and excels at one-on-one emotional support. Joe Torre (New York Yankees) is Goleman’s archetype.
The trapAffiliative leaders rarely offer constructive criticism, so poor performance goes uncorrected. “Mediocrity is tolerated.” Never use affiliative style alone. Always pair it with visionary to provide direction. The caring approach without a performance compass leads teams astray.
4. Democratic – “What do you think?”
Builds commitment and generates fresh ideas by giving people a voice. Drives up flexibility and responsibility because people have autonomy. Particularly useful when the leader genuinely doesn’t know the best path and needs to hear from the team.
The trapEndless meetings; consensus remains elusive; people feel leaderless. Democratic leaders sometimes use the style to avoid making hard decisions. Fails completely in a crisis when decisions must be made quickly.
5. Pacesetting – “Do as I do, now”
Sets high performance standards and exemplifies them personally. This style can work brilliantly with small teams of highly skilled, motivated professionals (R&D teams, legal groups, elite project teams). The leader’s implicit message: “excellence and nothing less.”
The trapMost people feel overwhelmed and demoralised by the relentless demand for excellence. The pacesetter takes over when performance slackens, becoming a micromanager. The team never develops because the leader does their work for them. Destroys flexibility and commitment. Keller uses this style with Brodsky – bypassing him, jumping in directly with customers, solving problems that Brodsky should own.
6. Commanding (Coercive) – “Do what I say”
Demands immediate compliance. Effective in a genuine crisis, turnaround, or when dealing with a problem employee who is resistant to all other approaches. Creates a “reign of terror” if overused. Destroys flexibility, kills motivation, and suffocates innovation. People stop bringing bad news.
Exam trap: reserve itThe commanding style should be used only with extreme caution and in the few situations where it is absolutely imperative. It should never be a default. Goleman’s research found it produced the most negative climate of all six styles when used beyond its narrow appropriate context.
Full Comparison Table – All Six Styles at a Glance▼
| Style | Motto | EI Components | Works Best When | Negative Climate Risk | Overall Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visionary | “Come with me” | Self-confidence, empathy, change catalyst | New direction needed; business adrift | Low (least effective when leader is less expert than team) | Most positive |
| Coaching | “Try this” | Developing others, empathy, self-awareness | Employee wants to grow; long-term focus | Low (fails if employee resistant) | Positive |
| Affiliative | “People come first” | Empathy, building relationships, communication | Healing rifts; boosting morale | Moderate (poor performance goes uncorrected) | Positive |
| Democratic | “What do you think?” | Collaboration, team leadership, communication | Uncertainty; need fresh ideas; buy-in critical | Moderate (endless meetings; confusion if overused) | Positive but conditional |
| Pacesetting | “Do as I do, now” | Conscientiousness, achievement drive | Skilled, motivated team; quick wins needed | High (overwhelms most people; micromanagement) | Negative if overused |
| Commanding | “Do what I say” | Self-control, initiative, achievement drive | Crisis only; problem employees; turnaround | Very high (destroys motivation, flexibility, commitment) | Most negative |
How to cite in the examGoleman, D. (2000), ‘Leadership That Gets Results’, Harvard Business Review, March–April, Reprint R00204. Also cite the relevant Session 6 course material.
Situational Fluency – The Master Move▼
Goleman’s analogy: think of leadership styles like golf clubs. A skilled golfer does not pick one club for the whole round. They select the right tool for each shot. The most effective leaders sense the situational demand and switch styles fluidly – often shifting within a single conversation.
Joan’s masterclass (Goleman, 2000)A division head at a global food company faced low morale, pervasive cynicism, and high turnover. She: (1) used coaching one-on-one to build relationships and understand individual concerns; (2) used democratic in an off-site to generate solutions and build buy-in; (3) shifted to visionary once solutions emerged, assigning accountability and holding people to the plan. Result: within a year, all the climate measures improved dramatically, and the division’s financial results reflected that.
Practitioner’s Sequence for a New Leader:
Week 1–4: Affiliative – build trust, listen, establish relationships, be present
Month 2–3: Democratic – involve team in diagnosing issues and generating options
Month 3 onwards: Visionary – set direction; shift to Coaching for individuals needing development
Crisis moments only: Commanding, then return to Visionary as soon as crisis passes
Never: Lead primarily with Pacesetting or Commanding over sustained periods
Week 1–4: Affiliative – build trust, listen, establish relationships, be present
Month 2–3: Democratic – involve team in diagnosing issues and generating options
Month 3 onwards: Visionary – set direction; shift to Coaching for individuals needing development
Crisis moments only: Commanding, then return to Visionary as soon as crisis passes
Never: Lead primarily with Pacesetting or Commanding over sustained periods
Leadership Style Selector Simulator▼
How to useDial in the parameters of your situation (or a case study protagonist’s situation). The simulator recommends the optimal Goleman style and explains the EI component and climate dimension driving the recommendation. Use this to practise exam answers before the exam.
Leadership Style Selector – What does this situation call for?
Team Skill Level 4/7
Task Urgency 4/7
Relationship Quality 4/7
Need for Buy-In 4/7
Recommended Style
Coaching
Adjust sliders to match your situation. The selector recommends the optimal Goleman style and explains the EI component driving it.
Session 7
Module II
Managing Your Boss
Gabarro & Kotter: managing upward is not manipulation – it is building a productive, mutually beneficial working relationship based on understanding, respect, and deliberate investment. Both parties’ performance depends on it.
Accordions:
The Core Argument – Mutual Dependence▼
Some managers who actively and effectively supervise subordinates, products, markets, and technologies assume an almost passively reactive stance towards their bosses. Such a stance almost always hurts them and their companies. The boss-subordinate relationship is one of mutual dependence: the subordinate depends on the boss for resources, information, career support, and context; the boss depends on the subordinate for execution, information, and results.
The central insightManaging upward is not manipulation. It is taking responsibility for a relationship that is essential to your effectiveness. Bonnevie (the counterexample in the article) assumed his boss would “magically know” what he needed. That assumption is dangerously unrealistic. Assume primary responsibility for the relationship yourself.
The Bonnevie cautionary talePhilip Bonnevie was promoted to report to Frank Gibbons (a brilliant but people-blind manufacturing VP). Bonnevie assumed Gibbons would naturally adapt to his needs. He never learned Gibbons’ priorities, misread his style (Listener vs. Reader), and failed to communicate bad news early. By the time the relationship deteriorated, both were fired. The lesson: do not assume a capable boss will bridge the gap for you.
Understanding Your Boss’s World▼
Before managing up, you must understand your boss’s world deeply. This requires active investigation, not passive assumption:
A) Your Boss’s Goals & Pressures
What are their stated and unstated objectives? What are they being measured on? What time horizon matters most to them (short vs. long term)? What external pressures are they under from their own boss?
B) Your Boss’s Style
Reader vs. Listener? Involved vs. delegating? How does they prefer to receive bad news? How does they make decisions – quick and decisive, or deliberate and consensual? Do they want frequent check-ins or to be left alone?
C) Your Boss’s Blind Spots & Vulnerabilities
Every boss has weaknesses. Understanding them is not about exploiting them – it is about compensating for them proactively so they do not become problems for your shared work.
D) Your Own Needs & Style
Know how you like to work, what you need from a boss, and where your own blind spots lie. The relationship requires self-awareness (Drucker) as much as boss-awareness.
What are their stated and unstated objectives? What are they being measured on? What time horizon matters most to them (short vs. long term)? What external pressures are they under from their own boss?
B) Your Boss’s Style
Reader vs. Listener? Involved vs. delegating? How does they prefer to receive bad news? How does they make decisions – quick and decisive, or deliberate and consensual? Do they want frequent check-ins or to be left alone?
C) Your Boss’s Blind Spots & Vulnerabilities
Every boss has weaknesses. Understanding them is not about exploiting them – it is about compensating for them proactively so they do not become problems for your shared work.
D) Your Own Needs & Style
Know how you like to work, what you need from a boss, and where your own blind spots lie. The relationship requires self-awareness (Drucker) as much as boss-awareness.
The Five Focus Areas▼
| Focus Area | What it means in practice | Mike Miller’s failure |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Compatible Work Styles | Adapt your communication and working mode to match your boss. If they are a Reader, never walk in to brief verbally – send a memo first. If they are a Listener, do not send a 10-page analysis and expect a decision by email. | Mason was a Listener / high-involvement style. Miller under-communicated and failed to adapt |
| 2. Mutual Expectations | Do not passively assume you know what the boss expects. Find out explicitly. Some bosses want detailed written plans for approval; others want well-planned verbal discussions. Also: communicate your own expectations and verify they are realistic. | Miller never surfaced the conflict between his expectations (strategic work) and Mason’s expectations (cost-cutting delivery) |
| 3. Information Flow | Bosses need timely, accurate information to do their jobs. Under-inform and they lose trust; over-inform and you waste their time. The key rule: no surprises. Bad news early is manageable; bad news late is a crisis. | Miller hid problems hoping they would resolve themselves. Mason found out through other channels |
| 4. Dependability & Honesty | Only promise what you can deliver. Follow through completely. Bosses can forgive mistakes, but they cannot forgive being misled. Spin destroys trust permanently. | Miller was honest but over-committed on timelines he could not control |
| 5. Good Use of Time & Resources | Do not waste your boss’s time on trivia. Do not come with problems without solutions. Reserve escalation for the issues that genuinely require their input or authority. | Miller escalated the Williams housing issue – a minor operational matter – which signalled poor judgement about what deserved Mason’s attention |
The No-Surprises Rule & Information Flow▼
Reader vs. Listener
| Reader Boss | Listener Boss | |
|---|---|---|
| How they process | Written information first; then discuss | Verbal briefings; asks questions in real time |
| Best approach | Send detailed memo or analysis before any meeting | Ask for a meeting; do not send a wall of text |
| Failure mode | Briefing them verbally – they switch off or feel unprepared | Sending long written reports; no context, no interaction |
| Famous example | Eisenhower (Supreme Commander) – devastated as President when required to listen | LBJ – brilliant as Senator; struggled when required to read and absorb |
The No-Surprises RuleThe most fundamental information management principle for upward relationships: your boss should never be surprised by bad news, problems, or failures – especially not in public. A problem shared early is manageable. A problem revealed late (especially when the boss finds out from someone else) is both a crisis and a trust violation that may be irreparable. Practise: always ask yourself, “Is there anything happening right now that my boss would want to know about?”
Exam Application – Connecting to Other Frameworks▼
Managing Your Boss rarely appears in isolation in the exam. It connects directly to:
Drucker (Sessions 1–2)
Know yourself before managing up. Your own Reader/Listener style, your values, and your performance preferences all affect how you engage with your boss. Drucker’s Q2 (“How do I perform?”) is the prerequisite for Gabarro & Kotter.
Power Dynamics / Hill (Session 3)
Managing your boss is one component of building your power base. Positional power (your formal authority) requires the boss’s active support. If you fail to manage upward, your positional power erodes because the boss stops backing your decisions.
Mike Miller Case (Session 3)
Miller is the primary exam case for Managing Your Boss. Apply all five focus areas: which ones did he neglect? How could a structured upward management plan have changed his trajectory?
EI (Sessions 4–5)
Managing your boss requires empathy (understanding their emotional makeup and pressures), self-awareness (knowing your own triggers and blind spots), and social skill (building a genuine relationship).
Know yourself before managing up. Your own Reader/Listener style, your values, and your performance preferences all affect how you engage with your boss. Drucker’s Q2 (“How do I perform?”) is the prerequisite for Gabarro & Kotter.
Power Dynamics / Hill (Session 3)
Managing your boss is one component of building your power base. Positional power (your formal authority) requires the boss’s active support. If you fail to manage upward, your positional power erodes because the boss stops backing your decisions.
Mike Miller Case (Session 3)
Miller is the primary exam case for Managing Your Boss. Apply all five focus areas: which ones did he neglect? How could a structured upward management plan have changed his trajectory?
EI (Sessions 4–5)
Managing your boss requires empathy (understanding their emotional makeup and pressures), self-awareness (knowing your own triggers and blind spots), and social skill (building a genuine relationship).
Cite asGabarro, J.J. and Kotter, J.P. (2005), ‘Managing Your Boss’, Harvard Business Review, January, Reprint R0501J. In text: “Applying Gabarro & Kotter’s (2005) upward management framework, [protagonist] failed to establish compatible work styles with [boss], creating a breakdown in the information flow critical to maintaining trust.”
Session 8
Module II
The Necessary Art of Persuasion
Conger: effective persuasion is a four-step process, not a one-shot argument. It requires credibility, common ground, vivid evidence, and emotional connection – in a world where people ask not just “What should I do?” but “Why should I do it?”
Accordions:
The Core Argument – What Persuasion Really Is▼
If there ever was a time for businesspeople to learn the fine art of persuasion, it is now. Gone are the command-and-control days of executives managing by decree. In today’s world of cross-functional teams, flat structures, and global organisations, work gets done because people choose to cooperate – not because they are ordered to.
The common misunderstandingMost businesspeople think persuasion works like this: (1) strongly state your position; (2) outline supporting arguments; (3) present data; (4) work toward a close. This is the surefire way to fail at persuasion. It sends the message that persuasion is a one-way street, and treats the audience as targets rather than partners.
What persuasion actually isPersuasion is a negotiating and learning process. It involves phases of discovery, preparation, and dialogue. The most effective persuaders are open-minded, willing to adjust their position, and prepared to incorporate others’ ideas. That openness is itself powerfully persuasive. When people see a persuader who genuinely listens and adapts, they lower their defences and engage constructively.
The Four-Step Persuasion Framework▼
Step 1: Establish Credibility
The first hurdle is your own credibility. Credibility grows from two sources: expertise (a history of sound judgement, proven knowledge in the relevant area) and relationships (trust built through consistent, honest, reliable behaviour over time). Most managers significantly overestimate their own credibility in both dimensions. Assess your credibility honestly before beginning any persuasion effort.
Tom Smith’s approachA new COO of a large retail bank visited all 135 branches in his region before attempting to persuade senior management of the need for change. This built both expertise (he now knew the business deeply) and relationship credibility (branch managers vouched for him). By the time he presented, his case was nearly irresistible.
Step 2: Frame for Common Ground
Your position must appeal to your audience’s interests, not just your own. Frame benefits in terms that illuminate their advantages to those you are persuading. Even if the case seems clear to you, if the audience cannot see what is in it for them, they will not move. Sometimes this requires genuinely adjusting your position, not just your language.
Step 3: Provide Vivid Evidence
Numbers alone rarely persuade. Data makes an intellectual impact; stories and analogies make an emotional one. Listeners absorb information in proportion to its vividness. Use: comparable case studies, analogies that connect unfamiliar situations to familiar ones, and simple, visual language that makes abstract concepts concrete and memorable.
The BOB analogy (Fries & Linnett, Microsoft)Rather than describing a social-interface software product in technical terms, they used: “Imagine you want to cook dinner and you must first go to the supermarket…” The analogy connected an abstract software concept to a universally familiar frustration, making the product’s purpose instantly memorable. Data alone would have been ignored.
Step 4: Connect Emotionally
No persuasion succeeds without emotional resonance – but showing too much or the wrong type of emotion destroys it. The key: match your emotional tone to your audience’s emotional state. If they are proud of recent achievements, lead with recognition before raising concerns. If they are anxious, lead with empathy before offering solutions. Reading the room emotionally is as important as having the right argument.
Four Ways Not to Persuade▼
| Mistake | What it looks like | Why it fails |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Aggressive position-taking | Strongly state position upfront; resist any modification; treat counterarguments as attacks | Signals closed mind; audience digs in; triggers reactance |
| 2. Treating it as a one-shot event | Make the case once in a big meeting; assume decision follows | Persuasion requires sustained dialogue and relationship-building over weeks or months |
| 3. Presenting only data & logic | Build an airtight rational case; assume facts speak for themselves | People do not make decisions purely rationally; emotion and credibility matter equally |
| 4. Ignoring the emotional dimension | Deliver message with wrong emotional register (e.g., alarm when audience is proud; flatness when audience is excited) | Emotional mismatch destroys rapport and creates resentment, regardless of the quality of the argument |
Rhetoric, Logic & Emotion – Aristotle’s Triad▼
Conger’s framework maps directly onto Aristotle’s classical modes of persuasion, which provide a useful vocabulary for exam answers:
| Mode | Aristotle | Conger’s Step | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethos | Credibility of the speaker | Step 1: Establish credibility | Tom Smith’s 135 branch visits; Fries’ Stanford faculty |
| Logos | Logical argument and evidence | Step 3: Provide vivid evidence | Data + analogies + case studies; BOB restaurant analogy |
| Pathos | Emotional appeal | Steps 2 & 4: Frame + connect emotionally | Marcell’s WWII analogy at Chrysler; matching audience’s fighting spirit |
Exam applicationUse Conger’s framework when a case involves someone failing to get organisational buy-in, struggling to implement change, or not being heard in decision-making. Diagnose: which of the four steps is weak? A change leader who has strong data but no emotional connection (pathos) will fail even with a correct analysis. Cite: Conger, J.A. (1998), ‘The Necessary Art of Persuasion’, HBR, May–June, Reprint 98304.
Sessions 9–10
Case: Marie Jackson
Module III
Leading Change
Kotter’s 8 errors, Power Dynamics, and the Marie Jackson case – why transformation efforts fail and what change leaders must do differently. Change = D × V × P > Cost of Change.
Accordions:
Why Transformation Efforts Fail – Kotter’s Core Argument▼
Over 100 companies studied. A few highly successful, a few utter failures, most somewhere in between – with a distinct tilt toward the lower end. The most general lesson: the change process goes through a series of phases that require considerable time. Skipping steps creates only an illusion of speed and never produces satisfying results. Making critical mistakes in any phase can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating gains already made.
Change Formula: DVP > Cost (Maguire, Session 9)Change only happens when: D (Dissatisfaction with status quo) × V (clear Vision of desired state) × P (Practical first steps) > Cost of Change. If any of D, V, or P is zero, the product is zero – change fails regardless of the other factors. Use this to diagnose stuck change efforts.
Two types of change (Maguire, Session 9)Evolutionary (incremental): slow, bottom-up, builds through convincing others, culturally rooted, long-lasting. Revolutionary (transformational): fast, top-down, mandated, not necessarily culturally embedded. Kotter’s model addresses revolutionary transformation – the kind most likely to fail without rigorous process discipline.
Kotter’s 8 Steps – and the 8 Errors▼
Kotter, J.P. (2007), ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, HBR, January, Reprint R0701J
Power Dynamics – Why Politics Is Inevitable▼
Hill’s technical note establishes that organisations are inherently political entities. Managers who fail to understand how power and influence work find it difficult to be effective – regardless of their technical competence.
Why political conflict is inevitable:
1. Scarce resources: organisations never have enough budget, talent, or time to satisfy everyone
2. Interdependence: managers depend on people over whom they have no formal authority
3. Different goals and values: departments, levels, and individuals optimise for different things
4. Ambiguity: in complex organisations, it is rarely clear who is responsible for what
The solution – law of reciprocity:
Influence in the absence of formal authority is acquired through reciprocity – the near-universal belief that people should be paid back for what they do. Build networks as mutually beneficial sets of relationships. Invest before you need to withdraw.
Sources of power:
Expertise · Track record · Attractiveness (likability, vision) · Effort · Legitimacy (formal authority) · Political access · Control over resources/information
1. Scarce resources: organisations never have enough budget, talent, or time to satisfy everyone
2. Interdependence: managers depend on people over whom they have no formal authority
3. Different goals and values: departments, levels, and individuals optimise for different things
4. Ambiguity: in complex organisations, it is rarely clear who is responsible for what
The solution – law of reciprocity:
Influence in the absence of formal authority is acquired through reciprocity – the near-universal belief that people should be paid back for what they do. Build networks as mutually beneficial sets of relationships. Invest before you need to withdraw.
Sources of power:
Expertise · Track record · Attractiveness (likability, vision) · Effort · Legitimacy (formal authority) · Political access · Control over resources/information
Exam applicationWhen a change leader or new manager fails to get traction, ask: do they have sufficient power from multiple sources? Kotter’s Step 2 (guiding coalition) is really a power-building exercise – the coalition must collectively have enough expertise, credibility, relationships, and formal authority to overcome resistance.
Case: Marie Jackson – Revitalizing Renfield Farms▼
Context
Marie Jackson is appointed CEO of Renfield Farms, an organic dairy company, in 2013 – the first outsider CEO in the company’s history. Renfield is in crisis: a social media scandal has destroyed morale, key employees have left, and the business model is stagnating. Jackson must revitalise the company while overcoming deep cultural resistance to her as an outsider from the processed food industry.
Applying the Kotter Framework
| Kotter Step | What Jackson did | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Urgency | Social media scandal and morale crisis provided a ready-made burning platform | Strong – DVP formula: D (dissatisfaction) was high |
| 2. Guiding Coalition | Invited 12 cross-functional managers to a Sea Island retreat; built her planning team | Good start – cross-functional = diverse power bases |
| 3. Vision | Created “To Nourish Life” vision; consumer-partnership strategy; brand revitalisation | Clear, communicable, aspirational |
| 4. Communicate | Town halls, brand strategy sessions, direct consumer engagement focus | Moderate – internal scepticism remained high |
| 5. Remove Obstacles | Tried to launch Hale Refresh (new product); had to champion it herself due to executive risk-aversion | Weak – key obstacle: executives unwilling to take risks |
| 6. Short-Term Wins | Hale Refresh product launch | Mixed – Jackson had to drive it personally, not through her team |
The core leadership dilemmaJackson realised: “Without her, the product would not have been launched; but as chief executive officer, she had to work through other people to initiate and drive real change, and that required greater collaboration.” This is the fundamental tension in leading change: urgency pushes for personal intervention; sustainability requires building others’ ownership.
DVP Applied to JacksonD: High – scandal, departures, morale collapse. V: Developing – “Nourish Life” vision in progress. P: Weak – practical first steps unclear to most employees; Jackson driving too much herself. Result: change is starting but fragile. Steps 5–8 are the critical next phase.
Resistance to Change – Diagnosis Framework▼
Maguire’s Session 9 adds a practical diagnostic for understanding why people resist change. Each cause requires a different response:
| Cause of Resistance | Response Strategy |
|---|---|
| Misunderstanding the need for change | Communication – increase D (urgency); make the case compelling and specific |
| Fear of the unknown | Vision clarity – increase V; concrete picture of the desired state |
| Lack of competence | Training and development – build capability before demanding new behaviours |
| Not being consulted | Participation – involve resisters in the design (Kotter Step 2: guiding coalition) |
| Poor communication | Over-communicate the vision (Kotter Step 4); use multiple channels and visible behaviour |
| Loss of power and autonomy | Acknowledge the loss; explain the new power structure; offer new roles |
Cite asKotter, J.P. (2007), ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, HBR, January, Reprint R0701J. For Power Dynamics: Hill, L.A. (1994), ‘Power Dynamics in Organizations’, HBS 494-083. Cite Maguire (2026), Session 9, for the DVP formula and change types.
Sessions 11–12
Module III
Group Presentations
Assessed presentation sessions. No lecture content and no assigned readings for the final exam.
No Exam Reading for Sessions 11–12
Sessions 11 and 12 are fully dedicated to group presentations. There are no assigned articles, cases, or frameworks introduced in these sessions.
For exam preparation, focus on the frameworks from Sessions 1–10 and Session 13. Use the Integrated Frameworks page for a structured exam approach.
Session 13
Module IV
Recruitment & Job Motivation
Hill’s Managing Your Career technical note: how to build power, expertise, and networks deliberately over the arc of a career – and the special dilemmas of the early-career phase. Leadership is about coping with change (Kotter) – and careers demand the same discipline.
Accordions:
Managing Your Career – Hill’s Framework▼
To be effective in today’s rapidly changing environment, managers must prioritise developing their leadership talents. Leadership is no longer the purview of senior executives – even first-line managers are assigned significant leadership responsibilities as organisations become flatter and leaner. Kotter identifies three critical leadership functions that managers must develop:
Kotter’s 3 Critical Leadership Functions:
1. Setting a direction – developing a vision and strategy for producing the changes needed
2. Aligning people – communicating direction; creating coalitions that understand the vision
3. Motivating and inspiring – keeping people moving in the right direction despite obstacles
The Essence of Development:
“Diversity and adversity beat repetition every time.” The more dramatic the change in skill demands, the more severe the personnel problems, the more bottom-line pressure – the more opportunity there is for learning. Comfortable circumstances are not the road to the top.
1. Setting a direction – developing a vision and strategy for producing the changes needed
2. Aligning people – communicating direction; creating coalitions that understand the vision
3. Motivating and inspiring – keeping people moving in the right direction despite obstacles
The Essence of Development:
“Diversity and adversity beat repetition every time.” The more dramatic the change in skill demands, the more severe the personnel problems, the more bottom-line pressure – the more opportunity there is for learning. Comfortable circumstances are not the road to the top.
Exam link: Drucker + HillDrucker (Sessions 1–2) told you to know yourself. Hill tells you what to do with that knowledge: seek experiences that stretch your capabilities, build networks before you need them, and proactively manage your career trajectory rather than waiting for opportunities to come to you.
Building Power Over Your Career – The Three Pillars▼
| Pillar | What it is | How to build it | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expertise | Depth of knowledge and skill in strategically relevant areas | Seek stretch assignments; volunteer for challenging projects; build technical credibility through results | The “bridgeline” that anchors your web of influence. Others seek you out for advice and decisions |
| Track Record / Credibility | History of task and organisationally relevant accomplishments | Deliver consistently; make your results visible; take on high-stakes, high-visibility assignments early | Most durable power source; survives role changes; provides “benefit of the doubt” in new situations |
| Network of Relationships | Mutually beneficial set of relationships – superior, lateral, and external | Build connections before you need them; apply the law of reciprocity; offer value first | Provides access to information, resources, sponsorship, and advocacy; particularly critical in political organisations |
The Web of InfluenceHill describes career power as building a “web of influence.” The web is anchored by expertise (the bridgeline), extended through networks (the threads), and strengthened by track record (the tension that holds the structure together). Unlike a spider’s web, the manager’s web is mutually advantageous to all who interact within it.
Fit vs. Learning Opportunity – The Early Career Dilemma▼
Those early in their careers must navigate a fundamental tension between two criteria for choosing positions:
| Fit | Learning Opportunity | |
|---|---|---|
| What it prioritises | Existing strengths, values, preferences; positions where you are already confident | New skills, adversity, stretch; positions that will force development even if uncomfortable |
| Short-term effect | Immediate performance; rapid contribution; confidence | Initial discomfort; slower ramp-up; higher risk of failure |
| Long-term effect | May plateau; limited development if the role is too comfortable | Accelerated leadership development; broader capability base |
| Hill’s recommendation | Prioritise learning opportunity over fit in early career. The most demanding experiences (personnel problems, bottom-line pressure, dramatic change) provide the richest development – “being shocked and pressured teaches the most.” | |
Creating the Success Syndrome & Annual Career Audit▼
The Success Syndrome
When individuals choose an appropriate position: competencies develop → track record and credibility grow → people seek them out → they receive more desirable assignments → further expertise develops. This virtuous cycle is the success syndrome. Conversely, a bad fit at the start creates the opposite: slow contribution, low credibility, missed opportunities.
Annual Career Audit (Hill)
Ask yourself once a year:
1. How have I contributed to organisational performance? What have I added to my track record?
2. If my credibility has not improved, why? Do people know what I have been doing?
3. What have I learned in the past year? Have I developed new capabilities?
4. Have I cultivated developmental relationships (mentors, sponsors)?
5. Am I in a position that is relevant, autonomous, and visible?
6. Is my speed of movement through the organisation neither too slow nor too fast?
1. How have I contributed to organisational performance? What have I added to my track record?
2. If my credibility has not improved, why? Do people know what I have been doing?
3. What have I learned in the past year? Have I developed new capabilities?
4. Have I cultivated developmental relationships (mentors, sponsors)?
5. Am I in a position that is relevant, autonomous, and visible?
6. Is my speed of movement through the organisation neither too slow nor too fast?
Exam application + citationSession 13 connects everything: Drucker’s self-knowledge (Q1–Q5) + Hill’s power model + Kotter’s leadership functions = a complete framework for managing yourself through a career. Use in any exam case involving career decisions, early-career struggles, or talent development. Cite: Hill, L.A. (1994), ‘Managing Your Career’, HBS 494-082. Also: Maguire, L. (2026), Session 13.
Reference
Integrated Frameworks
Universal exam method, cross-case matrix, and the symptom-to-framework selector. Start here for every exam question.
Accordions:
5-Step Universal Exam Method▼
Apply this to every fresh case in the examThe exam will present a case similar to those discussed in class. Do not summarise the case – the examiner already has it. Go straight to diagnosis, framework application, and recommendation.
Step 1 – Diagnose Symptoms
What problems are described? Turnover / disengagement → EI + Leadership Styles
Leader failing in new role → Drucker + Power Dynamics + Managing Your Boss
Change initiative stalling → Kotter 8 Steps + DVP formula
People not persuaded → Conger’s 4 steps
Culture/morale collapse → Goleman 6 Styles (which is being overused?)
Step 2 – Identify Frameworks
Select 2–3 frameworks that directly address the core issue. Name them explicitly by author, year, and article title. Do not apply more than 3 in depth – better to apply 2 well than 4 superficially.
Step 3 – Apply Frameworks to the Case
Quote the protagonist’s specific behaviours or decisions. Score them against the framework criteria. Use the framework’s own language and concepts. Show you understand the model, not just its name.
Step 4 – Make Concrete Recommendations
Propose specific, actionable changes tied to the frameworks. Always state: What + Why (which framework) + How. Acknowledge trade-offs – nothing is free. Reference a course case as evidence (“As demonstrated in the SAS Institute case...”).
Step 5 – Identify Risks & Mitigations
What could go wrong? Use the “Common Pitfalls” from the relevant framework. How would you monitor and mitigate each risk?
Always end with: A bibliography section citing every article, case, and session slide you referenced.
What problems are described? Turnover / disengagement → EI + Leadership Styles
Leader failing in new role → Drucker + Power Dynamics + Managing Your Boss
Change initiative stalling → Kotter 8 Steps + DVP formula
People not persuaded → Conger’s 4 steps
Culture/morale collapse → Goleman 6 Styles (which is being overused?)
Step 2 – Identify Frameworks
Select 2–3 frameworks that directly address the core issue. Name them explicitly by author, year, and article title. Do not apply more than 3 in depth – better to apply 2 well than 4 superficially.
Step 3 – Apply Frameworks to the Case
Quote the protagonist’s specific behaviours or decisions. Score them against the framework criteria. Use the framework’s own language and concepts. Show you understand the model, not just its name.
Step 4 – Make Concrete Recommendations
Propose specific, actionable changes tied to the frameworks. Always state: What + Why (which framework) + How. Acknowledge trade-offs – nothing is free. Reference a course case as evidence (“As demonstrated in the SAS Institute case...”).
Step 5 – Identify Risks & Mitigations
What could go wrong? Use the “Common Pitfalls” from the relevant framework. How would you monitor and mitigate each risk?
Always end with: A bibliography section citing every article, case, and session slide you referenced.
Cross-Case Comparison Matrix▼
| Case | Sessions | Core Problem | Primary Frameworks | Key Transferable Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Miller (A) Frontier Finance Corp. |
3 | New MBA (Harvard) fails to navigate political landscape; caught between two warring SVPs; relocated to basement after 6 months | Drucker (Managing Oneself); Hill (Power Dynamics); Gabarro & Kotter (Managing Your Boss) | Formal authority alone is insufficient. New managers must map power dynamics, diagnose their boss’s style, and build a power base before they need it. The Mike Miller trap: assuming capability = influence. |
| Wolfgang Keller Königsbräu-TAK (Ukraine) |
4–5 | MD must decide whether to develop or exit Commercial Director (Brodsky) whose formal/distant style is damaging client relationships and distributor network | Goleman (EI – What Makes a Leader); Goleman (6 Styles – Leadership That Gets Results); Kotter (What Leaders Really Do) | EI is learnable but requires genuine desire and effort from the person. Keller must also examine his own pacesetting/commanding tendency – his bypassing behaviour is the mirror image of Brodsky’s low-empathy problem. |
| Marie Jackson Renfield Farms |
9–10 | First outsider CEO must revitalise a demoralised organic dairy company while overcoming intense cultural resistance to change and to her own background | Kotter (Leading Change 8 Steps); Hill (Power Dynamics); DVP formula; Conger (Persuasion) for internal buy-in | Change requires building D (urgency), V (vision), and P (practical steps) simultaneously. Jackson drove too much personally – sustainable change requires building others’ ownership and removing obstacles so the coalition can move without the CEO doing the work. |
Symptom-to-Framework Selector▼
| If you see this symptom... | Apply this framework | Key concept to deploy |
|---|---|---|
| New leader failing, identity confusion, wrong organisation | Drucker – Managing Oneself | 5 self-knowledge questions; Q4 (Where do I belong?) |
| Manager not getting traction, no support, isolated | Hill – Power Dynamics | 3 power sources; law of reciprocity; network-building |
| Boss relationship deteriorating; surprises; information vacuum | Gabarro & Kotter – Managing Your Boss | 5 focus areas; Reader vs. Listener; No-Surprises Rule |
| Team disengaged, talented people leaving, low morale | Goleman – EI (What Makes a Leader) | 5 EI components; which is the bottleneck? |
| Leader using only one style; climate damaged | Goleman – 6 Styles (Leadership That Gets Results) | Climate dimensions; which style is overused? |
| Failing to persuade; good ideas not adopted | Conger – Art of Persuasion | 4 steps; credibility gap; emotional mismatch |
| Change stalling; resistance; initiative failing | Kotter – Leading Change 8 Steps | Which step is missing? DVP formula: D × V × P |
| Career stagnation; not developing fast enough | Hill – Managing Your Career | Fit vs. learning; 3 pillars; success syndrome |
How to Cite in the Exam▼
Per the course exam guide, citations must be in-text and include a bibliography. Use this format:
Articles (in-text):
Drucker (2005); Goleman (2004); Goleman (2000); Gabarro & Kotter (2005); Conger (1998); Kotter (2007)
Cases (in-text):
“As demonstrated in the Wolfgang Keller case (HBS 498045)...”
“Applying the Mike Miller case (HBS 482061) as evidence...”
“As Marie Jackson faced at Renfield Farms (HBS 915555)...”
Session slides:
Session [N] course material.
Bibliography format:
Drucker, P.F. (2005), ‘Managing Oneself’, HBR, January, Reprint R0501K.
Goleman, D. (2004), ‘What Makes a Leader?’, HBR, January, Reprint R0401H.
Goleman, D. (2000), ‘Leadership That Gets Results’, HBR, March–April, Reprint R00204.
Gabarro, J.J. & Kotter, J.P. (2005), ‘Managing Your Boss’, HBR, January, Reprint R0501J.
Kotter, J.P. (2001), ‘What Leaders Really Do’, HBR, December, Reprint R0111F.
Conger, J.A. (1998), ‘The Necessary Art of Persuasion’, HBR, May–June, Reprint 98304.
Kotter, J.P. (2007), ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, HBR, January, Reprint R0701J.
Hill, L.A. (1994), ‘Power Dynamics in Organizations’, HBS 494-083.
Hill, L.A. (1994), ‘Managing Your Career’, HBS 494-082.
Drucker (2005); Goleman (2004); Goleman (2000); Gabarro & Kotter (2005); Conger (1998); Kotter (2007)
Cases (in-text):
“As demonstrated in the Wolfgang Keller case (HBS 498045)...”
“Applying the Mike Miller case (HBS 482061) as evidence...”
“As Marie Jackson faced at Renfield Farms (HBS 915555)...”
Session slides:
Session [N] course material.
Bibliography format:
Drucker, P.F. (2005), ‘Managing Oneself’, HBR, January, Reprint R0501K.
Goleman, D. (2004), ‘What Makes a Leader?’, HBR, January, Reprint R0401H.
Goleman, D. (2000), ‘Leadership That Gets Results’, HBR, March–April, Reprint R00204.
Gabarro, J.J. & Kotter, J.P. (2005), ‘Managing Your Boss’, HBR, January, Reprint R0501J.
Kotter, J.P. (2001), ‘What Leaders Really Do’, HBR, December, Reprint R0111F.
Conger, J.A. (1998), ‘The Necessary Art of Persuasion’, HBR, May–June, Reprint 98304.
Kotter, J.P. (2007), ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, HBR, January, Reprint R0701J.
Hill, L.A. (1994), ‘Power Dynamics in Organizations’, HBS 494-083.
Hill, L.A. (1994), ‘Managing Your Career’, HBS 494-082.
Reference
Buzzwords & Concepts
Exam power phrases and sentence starters by framework. Use these to signal precise framework command in every answer.
Accordions:
Drucker – Managing Oneself▼
feedback analysisReader vs. Listenerthreshold competenciesmirror testsecond careerknowledge workerperformance stylevalue fitwhere do I belongbuild on strengths
Power Phrases
Opening: “Applying Drucker’s (2005) framework for self-management, [protagonist] has failed to answer the fifth self-knowledge question: what should I contribute?”
Diagnosis: “The feedback analysis reveals a critical misalignment between [X]’s performance style (a Reader who requires written briefings) and [Y]’s expectations (a Listener who prefers verbal updates).”
Recommendation: “In accordance with Drucker’s (2005) principle that successful careers develop when people are prepared for opportunities by knowing their strengths, [X] should...”
Diagnosis: “The feedback analysis reveals a critical misalignment between [X]’s performance style (a Reader who requires written briefings) and [Y]’s expectations (a Listener who prefers verbal updates).”
Recommendation: “In accordance with Drucker’s (2005) principle that successful careers develop when people are prepared for opportunities by knowing their strengths, [X] should...”
Hill – Power Dynamics & Managing Your Career▼
law of reciprocityweb of influenceguiding coalitionformal authority insufficienttrack recordstretch assignmentsuccess syndromepositional powerpersonal powerrelationship powerinherently politicalbilateral dependence
Power Phrases
Opening: “Hill (1994) establishes that organisations are inherently political entities, and formal authority alone is insufficient to achieve results.”
Diagnosis: “[Protagonist] has strong personal power (expertise, track record) but near-zero relationship power – they have not invested in building the lateral relationships necessary to move initiatives through the organisation.”
Recommendation: “Applying Hill’s (1994) law of reciprocity, [X] should invest in [Y’s] priorities before making demands on their cooperation.”
Diagnosis: “[Protagonist] has strong personal power (expertise, track record) but near-zero relationship power – they have not invested in building the lateral relationships necessary to move initiatives through the organisation.”
Recommendation: “Applying Hill’s (1994) law of reciprocity, [X] should invest in [Y’s] priorities before making demands on their cooperation.”
Gabarro & Kotter – Managing Your Boss▼
mutual dependenceno surprisespassively reactivecompatible work stylesmutual expectationsinformation flowReader / Listenerassume primary responsibilitydependabilitydelegating vs. involved
Power Phrases
Opening: “Gabarro & Kotter (2005) establish that the boss–subordinate relationship is one of mutual dependence. [Protagonist]’s failure stems from adopting a passively reactive stance rather than assuming primary responsibility for managing the relationship.”
Diagnosis: “[Protagonist] violated the most fundamental principle of upward management: the no-surprises rule. By allowing [Y] to discover [problem] through other channels, they irreparably damaged the trust that effective working relationships require.”
Diagnosis: “[Protagonist] violated the most fundamental principle of upward management: the no-surprises rule. By allowing [Y] to discover [problem] through other channels, they irreparably damaged the trust that effective working relationships require.”
Goleman – EI & Leadership Styles▼
sine qua non of leadershipthreshold capabilityEI is learnableself-awarenessself-regulationempathysocial skillorganisational climate~30% of financial performancestrategic choice not personalitycommanding stylepacesetting trapvisionary / coaching / affiliativesituational fluency
Power Phrases
EI diagnosis: “Goleman (2004) argues that EI is the sine qua non of leadership – the absolute prerequisite. Analysing [protagonist]’s profile, the critical deficit is empathy: they consistently fail to interpret how their decisions land emotionally with their team.”
Styles diagnosis: “[Protagonist] relies predominantly on the pacesetting style, which Goleman (2000) identifies as producing the most negative climate impact when overused. The immediate result is visible: flexibility and responsibility scores have collapsed, and the most talented employees are disengaging.”
Recommendation: “The recommendation is to develop situational fluency – specifically, to add the coaching and affiliative styles to [protagonist]’s repertoire, which would address the team’s current need for developmental investment and relationship repair.”
Styles diagnosis: “[Protagonist] relies predominantly on the pacesetting style, which Goleman (2000) identifies as producing the most negative climate impact when overused. The immediate result is visible: flexibility and responsibility scores have collapsed, and the most talented employees are disengaging.”
Recommendation: “The recommendation is to develop situational fluency – specifically, to add the coaching and affiliative styles to [protagonist]’s repertoire, which would address the team’s current need for developmental investment and relationship repair.”
Conger – The Necessary Art of Persuasion▼
negotiating and learning processnot a one-shot eventcredibility gapexpertise credibilityrelationship credibilityframe for common groundvivid evidenceemotional mismatchethos / logos / pathosopen-minded persuader
Power Phrases
Opening: “Conger (1998) establishes that effective persuasion is a negotiating and learning process, not a one-shot event. [Protagonist]’s failure to gain buy-in reflects a misdiagnosis of persuasion as a rational exercise rather than an emotional and relational one.”
Diagnosis: “The credibility gap is on the relationship dimension: [protagonist] has deep expertise but has invested little in building the network of relationships necessary for colleagues to extend them the benefit of the doubt.”
Diagnosis: “The credibility gap is on the relationship dimension: [protagonist] has deep expertise but has invested little in building the network of relationships necessary for colleagues to extend them the benefit of the doubt.”
Kotter – Leading Change▼
skipping stepsguiding coalitionDVP > Costurgency ratecompelling visionshort-term winsdeclaring victory too soonanchor in culturelip-service resisterevolutionary vs. revolutionary
Power Phrases
Opening: “Kotter (2007) observes that major transformation efforts almost always fail because leaders skip steps, creating only the illusion of speed while negating gains already made.”
Diagnosis: “Applying the DVP formula: [protagonist]’s change effort has high D (dissatisfaction is real and urgent) but near-zero P (practical first steps are unclear to most employees). Change fails not because the vision is wrong but because the pathway is invisible.”
Recommendation: “The priority must be Step 5: removing the obstacle of [specific person or structure] who is paying lip service to the change while actively blocking the behaviours the vision requires.”
Diagnosis: “Applying the DVP formula: [protagonist]’s change effort has high D (dissatisfaction is real and urgent) but near-zero P (practical first steps are unclear to most employees). Change fails not because the vision is wrong but because the pathway is invisible.”
Recommendation: “The priority must be Step 5: removing the obstacle of [specific person or structure] who is paying lip service to the change while actively blocking the behaviours the vision requires.”
Reference
Ready Reckoner
Full cheat sheet – all frameworks, formulas and cases. Use Ctrl+F to search.
Session colour key
Start here for every question · Course Reference Ch 11
5-Step Universal Case Framework – Apply to ANY Fresh Case
Course Reference · Ch 11
How to Attack the Exam Case
Step 1 – Diagnose Symptoms
Turnover / disengagement → JCM + Psych Safety
Low morale → JCM, Compensation, Culture
Resistance to change → Kotter 8 Steps + McKinsey 4-part
Performance problems → PM Revolution + Appraisal politics
New leader struggling → Managing Your Boss + Power + EI
Bad hires / wrong fit → Info asymmetry + Portability myth
Low morale → JCM, Compensation, Culture
Resistance to change → Kotter 8 Steps + McKinsey 4-part
Performance problems → PM Revolution + Appraisal politics
New leader struggling → Managing Your Boss + Power + EI
Bad hires / wrong fit → Info asymmetry + Portability myth
Step 2 – Baron & Kreps Alignment Check (MASTER LENS – always run this)
Is the HR system consistent across all 5 factors?
1. External Environment – legal, social, market
2. Workforce – demographics, culture, skills
3. Org Culture – cooperative vs. competitive
4. Strategy – competitive advantage, long-term goals
5. Technology – how work is organised
⚠ Red flag: any HR policy that fits one factor but breaks another
1. External Environment – legal, social, market
2. Workforce – demographics, culture, skills
3. Org Culture – cooperative vs. competitive
4. Strategy – competitive advantage, long-term goals
5. Technology – how work is organised
⚠ Red flag: any HR policy that fits one factor but breaks another
Step 3 – Pick Framework(s)
Job design issue → JCM + MPS calc
Hiring issue → Info asymmetry + Portability myth
Evaluation issue → PM Revolution + Politics of appraisal
Comp issue → Pfeffer 6 myths + PFP checklist + cMin/iMax
Culture/motivation → Psych Safety matrix + Netflix F&R
Change mgmt → Kotter 8 steps + McKinsey 4-part
Restructuring → Cascio responsible restructuring
Hiring issue → Info asymmetry + Portability myth
Evaluation issue → PM Revolution + Politics of appraisal
Comp issue → Pfeffer 6 myths + PFP checklist + cMin/iMax
Culture/motivation → Psych Safety matrix + Netflix F&R
Change mgmt → Kotter 8 steps + McKinsey 4-part
Restructuring → Cascio responsible restructuring
Step 4 – Recommend (Concrete + Framework-Anchored)
Always: What + Why (which framework) + How
Cite a case: "As seen in Southwest / SAS / Safelite…"
Acknowledge trade-offs – nothing is free
Cite a case: "As seen in Southwest / SAS / Safelite…"
Acknowledge trade-offs – nothing is free
Step 5 – Risks & Mitigation
What could go wrong? → Red flags from each chapter
Propose mitigations for each risk
Propose mitigations for each risk
Sessions 1–2 · Baron & Kreps / Erin Meyer / Drucker / Gabarro & Kotter
Alignment, Culture & Managing Yourself
Baron & Kreps
5-Factor Alignment Model
The Master Framework – Use for Every Case
1. External Environment
Social · political · legal · economic context
2. Workforce
Culture · occupations · demographics of labour pool
3. Org Culture
Hierarchical vs. egalitarian · cooperative vs. competitive
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward orientation
4. Strategy
Distinctive competencies · competitive advantage · long-term goals
5. Technology of Production
How work is structured and executed
Social · political · legal · economic context
2. Workforce
Culture · occupations · demographics of labour pool
3. Org Culture
Hierarchical vs. egalitarian · cooperative vs. competitive
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward orientation
4. Strategy
Distinctive competencies · competitive advantage · long-term goals
5. Technology of Production
How work is structured and executed
⚠ No universally best HR system. Coherence > "best practice." Copying another firm's HR without checking your 5 factors = red flag.
Erin Meyer
Building Effective Culture
4 Core Principles
1. Define through behaviours, not values
"Integrity" on a poster ≠ culture. Needs observable, enforced behaviours.
2. Align culture with strategy
Culture must enable your distinctive competencies
3. Build sustaining mechanisms
Hiring + onboarding + evaluation + promotion must all reinforce desired behaviours
4. Challenge dysfunctional drift
Culture can drift away from what strategy needs
"Integrity" on a poster ≠ culture. Needs observable, enforced behaviours.
2. Align culture with strategy
Culture must enable your distinctive competencies
3. Build sustaining mechanisms
Hiring + onboarding + evaluation + promotion must all reinforce desired behaviours
4. Challenge dysfunctional drift
Culture can drift away from what strategy needs
Diagnostic Questions
1. What specific behaviours define our culture?
2. Do hiring, evaluation & promotion reinforce them?
3. Has culture drifted from strategy requirements?
4. Are leaders role-modelling the espoused culture?
2. Do hiring, evaluation & promotion reinforce them?
3. Has culture drifted from strategy requirements?
4. Are leaders role-modelling the espoused culture?
Drucker · HBR 2005
Managing Oneself
5 Questions Every Knowledge Worker Must Answer
1. What are my strengths? → Feedback analysis (do it; compare to reality)
2. How do I perform? → Reader vs. Listener; work alone vs. in team
3. What are my values? → Ethical "mirror test"; organisational fit
4. Where do I belong? → Use strengths in the right environment
5. What should I contribute? → Concrete results in 18 months
2. How do I perform? → Reader vs. Listener; work alone vs. in team
3. What are my values? → Ethical "mirror test"; organisational fit
4. Where do I belong? → Use strengths in the right environment
5. What should I contribute? → Concrete results in 18 months
💡 Build on strengths, not weaknesses. Second careers require reinvention. Use in any case about self-awareness, new leader onboarding, career transitions.
Gabarro & Kotter · HBR
Managing Your Boss
5 Focus Areas
1. Compatible work styles
Reader vs. Listener; involved vs. delegate
2. Mutual expectations
Don't assume – find out; communicate yours back
3. Information flow
Keep boss informed; share bad news early; no surprises
4. Dependability & honesty
Only promise what you can deliver; no spin
5. Good use of time & resources
Don't waste boss's time on trivia
Reader vs. Listener; involved vs. delegate
2. Mutual expectations
Don't assume – find out; communicate yours back
3. Information flow
Keep boss informed; share bad news early; no surprises
4. Dependability & honesty
Only promise what you can deliver; no spin
5. Good use of time & resources
Don't waste boss's time on trivia
💡 Mike Miller case: failure to manage Mason upward. Diagnose from Mike's blind spots about Mason's style.
Case Application – Sessions 1–2
Southwest Airlines (HR1A) · Sessions 1–2
Theme: System Design. Frameworks: Baron & Kreps + Meyer.
Hire for attitude; cross-functional roles; profit-sharing aligned with cooperative culture; minimal hierarchy. 31 consecutive profitable years.
Core lesson: Internal consistency – ALL practices must reinforce each other. Culture is a strategic asset only if aligned.
Hire for attitude; cross-functional roles; profit-sharing aligned with cooperative culture; minimal hierarchy. 31 consecutive profitable years.
Core lesson: Internal consistency – ALL practices must reinforce each other. Culture is a strategic asset only if aligned.
Baron & Kreps · Erin Meyer · S1–2
Mike Miller (A) – Frontier Finance · Session 3
Theme: Managing up + power dynamics. New MBA, 7 months in, considering resignation. Failed to map Mason's style; violated unwritten rules; didn't manage upward or build power base.
Watch for: Reader vs. Listener distinction; unwritten rules of the org; political landscape mapping.
Watch for: Reader vs. Listener distinction; unwritten rules of the org; political landscape mapping.
Managing Your Boss · Power Dynamics · S3
Pirate Organisation (Leeson) · Sessions 3–4
Theme: Governance & incentive alignment. 18th-century pirate ships as org design labs.
Democratic constitutions; separation of powers (Captain vs. Quartermaster); egalitarian pay; pre-agreed transparent incentives.
Core lesson: Incentive alignment is universal – context changes, human incentive problems do not.
Democratic constitutions; separation of powers (Captain vs. Quartermaster); egalitarian pay; pre-agreed transparent incentives.
Core lesson: Incentive alignment is universal – context changes, human incentive problems do not.
Institutional Design · Incentive Alignment · S3–4
Sessions 3–4 · Hackman & Oldham / Bernstein / Huselid, Beatty & Becker
Job Design & Intrinsic Motivation
Hackman & Oldham
Job Characteristics Model (JCM)
5 Dimensions → 3 Psychological States → Outcomes
Skill Variety ┐
Task Identity ├── Experienced Meaningfulness
Task Significance┘
Autonomy ─────── Experienced Responsibility
Feedback ─────── Knowledge of Results
Task Identity ├── Experienced Meaningfulness
Task Significance┘
Autonomy ─────── Experienced Responsibility
Feedback ─────── Knowledge of Results
MPS Formula – Compute This in the Exam
MPS = [(SV + TI + TS) ÷ 3] × Autonomy × Feedback
⚠ Autonomy & Feedback are MULTIPLIERS
If either = 0 → MPS collapses to ZERO
⚠ Autonomy & Feedback are MULTIPLIERS
If either = 0 → MPS collapses to ZERO
Fried Meta-Analysis – What Actually Matters
Satisfaction correlations:
Autonomy (0.71) > Skill Variety (0.67) > Feedback (0.56)
Results correlations:
Feedback (0.21) > Autonomy (0.18)
→ Adding variety alone = satisfaction↑ but near-ZERO results↑
Autonomy (0.71) > Skill Variety (0.67) > Feedback (0.56)
Results correlations:
Feedback (0.21) > Autonomy (0.18)
→ Adding variety alone = satisfaction↑ but near-ZERO results↑
Hackman & Oldham
JCM Interventions – Fix the Bottleneck
Targeted Fixes by Dimension
Skill Variety: Rearrange tasks; broader activity set
Task Identity: Let workers own work start-to-finish
Task Significance: Build customer relationships; show impact
Feedback: Direct channels from work itself (not just manager)
Autonomy: Delegate authority; let workers decide HOW, not just what
Task Identity: Let workers own work start-to-finish
Task Significance: Build customer relationships; show impact
Feedback: Direct channels from work itself (not just manager)
Autonomy: Delegate authority; let workers decide HOW, not just what
Transparency Paradox (Bernstein)
Over-surveillance → hiding behaviour (opposite of transparency)
China factory: privacy curtains → 10–15% productivity ↑
Privacy enables productive deviance – workers experiment
The Gap experiment (scheduling autonomy app):
→ 5.1% productivity ↑ · 10+ hrs/week supervisor time saved
China factory: privacy curtains → 10–15% productivity ↑
Privacy enables productive deviance – workers experiment
The Gap experiment (scheduling autonomy app):
→ 5.1% productivity ↑ · 10+ hrs/week supervisor time saved
⚠ Amazon wristbands: destroying autonomy backfires. Over-monitoring → gaming, not genuine performance.
Huselid, Beatty & Becker
"A Positions" Not "A Players"
Strategic Workforce Differentiation
A Positions: Strategically critical; high performance variability
→ Invest MOST here (hire, develop, retain)
B Positions: Important support; lower variability
→ Maintain and Develop
C Positions: Low strategic contribution
→ Outsource / Automate / Eliminate
→ Invest MOST here (hire, develop, retain)
B Positions: Important support; lower variability
→ Maintain and Develop
C Positions: Low strategic contribution
→ Outsource / Automate / Eliminate
💡 Strategic Q: "Which POSITIONS create the most value?" not "Who are our best people?" Then invest disproportionately in those positions.
Case Application – Sessions 3–4
Jennifer Henderson – Trustworthy Trust · S3–4
JCM diagnosis: Task Identity ≈ 0, Autonomy ≈ 0, Feedback ≈ 0 → MPS ≈ zero. 50%+ turnover of junior analysts within 18–30 months. Supervisors act as "super-analysts" – destroying autonomy. Physical bullpen vs. luxurious senior offices signals who is valued.
Fix jobs before blaming people.
Fix jobs before blaming people.
JCM · MPS · Autonomy · Feedback · S3–4
Power Dynamics in Organisations (Hill) · S3
Theme: New managers misunderstand power. Formal authority ≠ sufficient. Build: personal power (expertise, track record), positional power (role, resources), relationship power (networks, alliances). Power is bilateral.
Mike Miller parallel: Failed to build power base; didn't diagnose the political landscape.
Mike Miller parallel: Failed to build power base; didn't diagnose the political landscape.
Power Dynamics · Managing Your Boss · S3
Session 5 · Groysberg / Bernstein, Horn & Moesta / Definitive Guide to Recruiting
Recruiting, Selection & Retention
Groysberg et al.
Information Asymmetries & Portability Myth
Reducing Information Asymmetry
Candidates know more about suitability than employer
→ Strong incentives NOT to reveal weaknesses
Reduce asymmetry via:
• Signalling – degrees, certs = institutional filters
• Structured interviews – consistency, reduce bias
• Work samples & assessment centres
• "Always be recruiting" – proactive not reactive
→ Strong incentives NOT to reveal weaknesses
Reduce asymmetry via:
• Signalling – degrees, certs = institutional filters
• Structured interviews – consistency, reduce bias
• Work samples & assessment centres
• "Always be recruiting" – proactive not reactive
The Portability Myth (Groysberg)
Performance = Talent × Organisational Context
1,000+ Wall St. analysts: performance drops 3–5 yrs post-move
Success = prior firm's teams, data, processes, reputation
→ None of this transfers with the individual
Better outcomes:
• Moving with their team
• Lateral moves to similar firms
• Strong onboarding + rapid network integration
1,000+ Wall St. analysts: performance drops 3–5 yrs post-move
Success = prior firm's teams, data, processes, reputation
→ None of this transfers with the individual
Better outcomes:
• Moving with their team
• Lateral moves to similar firms
• Strong onboarding + rapid network integration
⚠ Don't expect plug-and-play from external hires. Protect and develop internal talent systems.
Definitive Guide / Cappelli
Recruiting Strategy Checklist
8 Steps
1. Anticipate needs before positions open
2. Specify clearly – must-haves vs. nice-to-haves
3. Wide net – diverse sourcing channels
4. Structured interviews with predetermined criteria
5. Cultural fit – but not as a proxy for homogeneity
6. Close the deal – selling the opportunity matters
7. Onboard fast and deliberately
8. Exit interviews – fix retention before more recruiting spend
2. Specify clearly – must-haves vs. nice-to-haves
3. Wide net – diverse sourcing channels
4. Structured interviews with predetermined criteria
5. Cultural fit – but not as a proxy for homogeneity
6. Close the deal – selling the opportunity matters
7. Onboard fast and deliberately
8. Exit interviews – fix retention before more recruiting spend
Why Employees Quit (Bernstein, Horn & Moesta)
People leave to something better, not just away from bad
Understand push (pain) AND pull (attraction) factors
Most recruiting problems are really retention problems
Understand push (pain) AND pull (attraction) factors
Most recruiting problems are really retention problems
Case Application – Session 5
SG Cowen – New Recruits · Session 5
Theme: Recruiting strategy aligned to market position. Chose non-core schools (top employer there) instead of competing with Goldman. Super Saturday structured process. Trade-off: pedigree vs. passion vs. grit.
Lessons: Align recruiting to market position. Structured process reduces (not eliminates) bias. Dissenting voices in hiring committees must be heard. Vague "chemistry" criteria → bias.
Lessons: Align recruiting to market position. Structured process reduces (not eliminates) bias. Dissenting voices in hiring committees must be heard. Vague "chemistry" criteria → bias.
Info Asymmetry · Cultural Fit · Signalling · S5
Session 6 · Cappelli & Tavis / Politics of Appraisal / Goleman 6 Styles
Performance Evaluation & Leadership Styles
Cappelli & Tavis · HBR
Performance Management Revolution
4 Key Shifts
Annual → Continuous: Regular check-ins replace annual reviews
Backward → Forward: Development & coaching vs. rating past
Ranking → Development: "Rank & yank" (GE) abandoned
HR-owned → Manager-led: Managers become coaches
Backward → Forward: Development & coaching vs. rating past
Ranking → Development: "Rank & yank" (GE) abandoned
HR-owned → Manager-led: Managers become coaches
Why the Shift?
• Agile work needs faster feedback cycles
• Annual reviews: info arrives too late to be useful
• Ratings cause defensiveness → undermine learning
• Enormous time cost, little proven value
⚠ Can't abolish – still need differentiation for comp decisions
• Annual reviews: info arrives too late to be useful
• Ratings cause defensiveness → undermine learning
• Enormous time cost, little proven value
⚠ Can't abolish – still need differentiation for comp decisions
4 Diagnostic Questions (Politics of Appraisal)
1. What are the stated objectives?
2. What are the actual objectives (revealed by use)?
3. Whose interests does the system serve?
4. What behaviours does it actually incentivise?
2. What are the actual objectives (revealed by use)?
3. Whose interests does the system serve?
4. What behaviours does it actually incentivise?
Goleman · HBR 2000
6 Leadership Styles
Style · EI Competency · When to Use · Climate Impact Score
Coercive · Drive/initiative · Crisis/emergency only · −0.26
Authoritative · Self-confidence/empathy · New vision needed · +0.54 ★ strongest
Affiliative · Empathy/communication · Heal rifts; stress · +0.46
Democratic · Collaboration/EQ · Build buy-in; input · +0.43
Pacesetting · Drive/initiative · Short burst, expert team · −0.25
Coaching · Developing others · Long-term growth · +0.42
Authoritative · Self-confidence/empathy · New vision needed · +0.54 ★ strongest
Affiliative · Empathy/communication · Heal rifts; stress · +0.46
Democratic · Collaboration/EQ · Build buy-in; input · +0.43
Pacesetting · Drive/initiative · Short burst, expert team · −0.25
Coaching · Developing others · Long-term growth · +0.42
💡 Climate → ~30% of financial results. Best leaders use 4+ styles fluidly. Mnemonic: C-A-A-D-P-C. Coercive & Pacesetting = negative → use sparingly.
Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership
Transactional: Exchange-based – rewards for performance, corrects deviations. Maintains status quo. Short-term focus.
Transformational: Inspires beyond self-interest – vision, meaning, intrinsic motivation. Aligns with Kotter's "Leadership" role (vs. management).
⚠ Pure Transactional = management, not leadership. Both needed but transformation requires transformational style.
Transformational: Inspires beyond self-interest – vision, meaning, intrinsic motivation. Aligns with Kotter's "Leadership" role (vs. management).
⚠ Pure Transactional = management, not leadership. Both needed but transformation requires transformational style.
Session 3 · OB / Attribution Theory
Cognitive Biases in Evaluation
Key Biases That Corrupt Performance Ratings
Halo Effect: One positive trait colours all ratings (e.g., likeable → rated as competent)
Horn Effect: Reverse halo – one negative trait taints all ratings
Recency Bias: Recent events dominate; annual review captures last 2 months
Leniency / Strictness: Managers rate everyone high or all low
Central Tendency: Rate everyone average to avoid conflict
Attribution Error: Success = their effort; failure = their character (vs. situational factors)
Similarity Bias: Rate people more like yourself more favourably
Horn Effect: Reverse halo – one negative trait taints all ratings
Recency Bias: Recent events dominate; annual review captures last 2 months
Leniency / Strictness: Managers rate everyone high or all low
Central Tendency: Rate everyone average to avoid conflict
Attribution Error: Success = their effort; failure = their character (vs. situational factors)
Similarity Bias: Rate people more like yourself more favourably
⚠ Apply in Politics of Appraisal analysis – biases explain WHY actual ≠ stated objectives. Use in Wolfgang Keller (Keller's halo on Brodsky's technical skills) & Woolworths.
Case Application – Session 6
Woolworths – Engineered Standards · Session 6
Theme: Eval system destroying motivation. Time-motion benchmarks for distribution workers. Workers perceived as surveillance & dehumanisation. Union resistance.
JCM link: Autonomy → destroyed. Transparency paradox: More monitoring → more gaming. "Coaching" label on a control system. Participation in system design → increases acceptance.
JCM link: Autonomy → destroyed. Transparency paradox: More monitoring → more gaming. "Coaching" label on a control system. Participation in system design → increases acceptance.
JCM · Appraisal Politics · Transparency Paradox · S6
Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-TAK (A) · Sessions 4–5
Theme: Manager-subordinate relationship; leadership styles. Keller (results-focused, informal, hands-on) vs. Brodsky (relationship-driven, indirect, Ukrainian cultural norms). Keller's 3 options: fire, help improve, reorganise around.
Apply: Leadership styles (Keller overused pacesetting), EI (low empathy), Managing Your Boss (inverted – managing a subordinate), PM Revolution.
Apply: Leadership styles (Keller overused pacesetting), EI (low empathy), Managing Your Boss (inverted – managing a subordinate), PM Revolution.
Leadership Styles · EI · PM · S4–5
Session 7 · Pfeffer / Aguinis / Fulmer-Gerhart-Kim / Zeynep Ton / Dubin / Cullen
Compensation & Incentives
Pfeffer · HBR
6 Dangerous Myths About Pay
Debunk These in Any Compensation Question
Myth 1: Labour rates = labour costs
Reality: costs depend on productivity (Costco model)
Myth 2: Cutting labour rates cuts costs
Reality: raises turnover, lowers morale → total costs ↑
Myth 3: Labour is a large % of total costs
Reality: often small – gets disproportionate attention
Myth 4: Low labour costs = competitive advantage
Reality: Costco, Southwest, SAS win through high-performance systems
Myth 5: Individual incentive pay improves performance
Reality: undermines teamwork; encourages gaming
Myth 6: People work primarily for money
Reality: intrinsic motivation, fairness, growth often matter more
Reality: costs depend on productivity (Costco model)
Myth 2: Cutting labour rates cuts costs
Reality: raises turnover, lowers morale → total costs ↑
Myth 3: Labour is a large % of total costs
Reality: often small – gets disproportionate attention
Myth 4: Low labour costs = competitive advantage
Reality: Costco, Southwest, SAS win through high-performance systems
Myth 5: Individual incentive pay improves performance
Reality: undermines teamwork; encourages gaming
Myth 6: People work primarily for money
Reality: intrinsic motivation, fairness, growth often matter more
Fulmer, Gerhart & Kim
PFP Design Checklist
6 Conditions for PFP to Work
1. Clear goals & consequences – desired perf → pay ↑
2. Signalling – employees understand objectives & their own capacity
3. Unintended consequences ↑ with payout intensity – monitor closely
4. Multiple measures – behaviour + output; reduce gaming
5. Org specificities – star-driven → reward stars; team-driven → avoid excess individual PFP
6. Exceptions undermine credibility – be careful
2. Signalling – employees understand objectives & their own capacity
3. Unintended consequences ↑ with payout intensity – monitor closely
4. Multiple measures – behaviour + output; reduce gaming
5. Org specificities – star-driven → reward stars; team-driven → avoid excess individual PFP
6. Exceptions undermine credibility – be careful
Dubin: 4 Drivers of Wage Setting
Power – collective bargaining, ideology
Inertia – legacy scales, incremental adjustments
Mimicry – survey industry; follow market rate
Equity – fairness norms (powerful behavioural constraint)
Inertia – legacy scales, incremental adjustments
Mimicry – survey industry; follow market rate
Equity – fairness norms (powerful behavioural constraint)
Zeynep Ton / Cullen
cMin vs. iMax + Pay Transparency
Two Fundamentally Different Workforce Models
Cost Minimisation (cMin):
Low wages · minimal training · narrow job scope
High turnover · low commitment → "bad jobs" cycle
Involvement Maximisation (iMax):
Higher wages · rich training · broad job scope (JCM)
Low turnover · long-term productivity → "good jobs" cycle
Examples: Mercadona, QuikTrip
Low wages · minimal training · narrow job scope
High turnover · low commitment → "bad jobs" cycle
Involvement Maximisation (iMax):
Higher wages · rich training · broad job scope (JCM)
Low turnover · long-term productivity → "good jobs" cycle
Examples: Mercadona, QuikTrip
Pay Transparency (Cullen)
Horizontal: Unjustified peer gaps → effort ↓, cooperation ↓
Vertical: People underestimate superiors' pay; transparency → aspiration ↑
Inter-firm benchmarking: Converges toward median; inequality ↓25%+; retention ↑16%
Vertical: People underestimate superiors' pay; transparency → aspiration ↑
Inter-firm benchmarking: Converges toward median; inequality ↓25%+; retention ↑16%
Case Application – Session 7
Safelite Auto Glass (A & B) · Session 7
Theme: PFP design. Hourly → piece-rate with guaranteed minimum. Productivity ↑40% (incentive effect + sorting effect). High performers stayed; low performers self-selected out. Quality maintained via warranty accountability.
Conditions for PFP success: individually measurable output, verifiable quality, worker controls pace. Most jobs lack this – don't over-generalise.
Conditions for PFP success: individually measurable output, verifiable quality, worker controls pace. Most jobs lack this – don't over-generalise.
PFP Design · Pfeffer Myths · cMin vs. iMax · S7
Session 8 · Edmondson / Conger / SAS Institute
Alternative Rewards & Psychological Safety
Edmondson · HBR
Psychological Safety
Definition & Properties
"Felt permission for candour" (Edmondson)
= Shared belief: safe to take risks, speak up, admit mistakes
→ Group-level phenomenon (not individual trait)
→ Same org can have very different levels across teams
→ Not about being "nice" – coexists with high accountability
= Shared belief: safe to take risks, speak up, admit mistakes
→ Group-level phenomenon (not individual trait)
→ Same org can have very different levels across teams
→ Not about being "nice" – coexists with high accountability
The 2×2 Matrix
Low Safety | High Safety
High Standards → Anxiety Zone | LEARNING ZONE ✓
Low Standards → Apathy Zone | Comfort Zone
Target: Learning Zone = high safety + high accountability
High Standards → Anxiety Zone | LEARNING ZONE ✓
Low Standards → Apathy Zone | Comfort Zone
Target: Learning Zone = high safety + high accountability
What Leaders Can Do
• Frame work as a learning problem, not execution problem
• Acknowledge own fallibility ("I need to hear from you")
• Model curiosity ("What did you learn?" not "What went wrong?")
• Respond productively to bad news and mistakes
• Create explicit norms for speaking up
• Acknowledge own fallibility ("I need to hear from you")
• Model curiosity ("What did you learn?" not "What went wrong?")
• Respond productively to bad news and mistakes
• Create explicit norms for speaking up
Conger · HBR 1998
The Necessary Art of Persuasion
4 Elements of Effective Persuasion
1. Credibility
Expertise + track record + trustworthiness
Must be earned over time; cannot be claimed
2. Common Ground
Frame position in terms of audience's interests
Understand their goals and concerns first
3. Vivid Evidence
Data + stories + examples (narrative > pure stats)
Emotionally resonant examples anchor the argument
4. Connect Emotionally
Read the emotional state of the audience
Match tone and pitch to context
Expertise + track record + trustworthiness
Must be earned over time; cannot be claimed
2. Common Ground
Frame position in terms of audience's interests
Understand their goals and concerns first
3. Vivid Evidence
Data + stories + examples (narrative > pure stats)
Emotionally resonant examples anchor the argument
4. Connect Emotionally
Read the emotional state of the audience
Match tone and pitch to context
⚠ Most common mistake: presenting position then data without building credibility or understanding the audience first.
💡 Persuasion = negotiation & learning process, not one-shot. Adjust based on feedback. Apply when recommending change or influencing without authority.
Case Application – Session 8
SAS Institute · Session 8
Theme: Alternative rewards. No PFP, no forced rankings. 35-hr weeks, on-site childcare, healthcare. 4% turnover (vs 20% industry). Trust-based management. Below-market base, extraordinary total package.
System: Psych safety + meaningful work + trust = high performance without PFP. Low turnover savings fund benefits → virtuous cycle. Works best for: knowledge workers with intrinsic motivation. Not universally portable.
System: Psych safety + meaningful work + trust = high performance without PFP. Low turnover savings fund benefits → virtuous cycle. Works best for: knowledge workers with intrinsic motivation. Not universally portable.
JCM · Psych Safety · Pfeffer Myths · Baron & Kreps · S8
Session 9 · Anicich, Lee & Sánchez Celi / Morning Star / Self-Management
Self-Management & Hierarchy
Anicich, Lee & Sánchez Celi
Challenges of De-Hierarchisation
Structural Dynamics
Zombie structures: Old hierarchical habits persist after restructuring
Decision ambiguity: Without clear authority → decisions stall
Coordination costs: Flat = more communication overhead
Decision ambiguity: Without clear authority → decisions stall
Coordination costs: Flat = more communication overhead
People Dynamics
Identity threat: Managers losing authority feel devalued
Skill gaps: Self-management needs negotiation, conflict resolution, self-direction
Uneven adoption: Some teams embrace it; others resist
Free-rider problem: Without clear accountability → some underperform
Skill gaps: Self-management needs negotiation, conflict resolution, self-direction
Uneven adoption: Some teams embrace it; others resist
Free-rider problem: Without clear accountability → some underperform
⚠ Flat ≠ no structure. Remove hierarchy without replacing accountability systems → chaos. Zombie structures are invisible but lethal.
Morning Star
CLOUs & Self-Management at Scale
Core Mechanisms (Zero Managers)
CLOUs: Colleague Letters of Understanding
Bilateral agreements defining mutual commitments & performance expectations
Peer accountability: Direct convo → mediation → panel
Radical transparency: All financials visible to all
Self-initiated roles: Employees define & negotiate own roles
Gaining processes: Anyone initiates change; must consult all affected
Bilateral agreements defining mutual commitments & performance expectations
Peer accountability: Direct convo → mediation → panel
Radical transparency: All financials visible to all
Self-initiated roles: Employees define & negotiate own roles
Gaining processes: Anyone initiates change; must consult all affected
Prerequisites & Limits
Needs: strong mission + shared values + high-trust culture + self-direction capability
Works best in: stable, process-oriented environments
Harder with: rapid growth, diverse ops, low-skill workforce
⚠ Self-management ≠ "no management"
Replaces hierarchy with peer coordination – equally structured
Works best in: stable, process-oriented environments
Harder with: rapid growth, diverse ops, low-skill workforce
⚠ Self-management ≠ "no management"
Replaces hierarchy with peer coordination – equally structured
Case Application – Session 9
Morning Star Company · Session 9
Theme: Self-management at scale. World's largest tomato processor (40% US market). Zero managers. CLOUs + peer-based performance evaluation + transparent financials + self-initiated compensation (reviewed by elected peer committee).
Scalability question: Works in stable, process environments with strong mission. Harder with rapid growth or complex/diverse ops.
Scalability question: Works in stable, process environments with strong mission. Harder with rapid growth or complex/diverse ops.
CLOUs · Peer Accountability · Self-Management · S9
Session 10 · Google Project Oxygen / Netflix F&R / Kotter / Goleman EI / Burris
The Role of the Manager & Leading
Google Project Oxygen
8 Behaviours of Great Managers
Ranked by Importance (Data-Driven)
1. Good coach
2. Empowers team – does NOT micromanage
3. Expresses interest in success & personal well-being
4. Productive & results-oriented
5. Good communicator – listens and shares
6. Helps with career development
7. Clear vision and strategy for the team
8. Key technical skills to advise
⚠ Technical expertise ranked LAST. Top = coaching, empowerment, communication
2. Empowers team – does NOT micromanage
3. Expresses interest in success & personal well-being
4. Productive & results-oriented
5. Good communicator – listens and shares
6. Helps with career development
7. Clear vision and strategy for the team
8. Key technical skills to advise
⚠ Technical expertise ranked LAST. Top = coaching, empowerment, communication
Netflix Culture Deck
Freedom & Responsibility
7 Key Aspects
1. Values: Judgment · Curiosity · Innovation · Courage · Honesty · Selflessness
2. High Performance: "Adequate performance = generous severance"
3. Freedom & Responsibility: Max autonomy for those who demonstrate it
4. Context, Not Control: Provide strategy/metrics → employees decide
5. Highly Aligned, Loosely Coupled: Strategic alignment top; tactical freedom at team level
6. Pay Top of Market: No bonuses needed; base = market-leading
7. Keeper Test: "Would I fight to keep this person?"
2. High Performance: "Adequate performance = generous severance"
3. Freedom & Responsibility: Max autonomy for those who demonstrate it
4. Context, Not Control: Provide strategy/metrics → employees decide
5. Highly Aligned, Loosely Coupled: Strategic alignment top; tactical freedom at team level
6. Pay Top of Market: No bonuses needed; base = market-leading
7. Keeper Test: "Would I fight to keep this person?"
💡 Real values = who you reward, promote, or let go. Contrast: Enron had "Integrity" on the wall. Compare Google (structured 8 behaviours + upward feedback surveys) vs. Netflix (radical, minimal policies).
Kotter / Goleman
Leadership vs. Management + EI
Kotter: What Leaders Really Do
Management: Planning · Organising · Controlling → predictability & order
Leadership: Setting direction · Aligning people · Motivating → change
Both necessary. Most orgs: OVER-managed + UNDER-led
Leadership: Setting direction · Aligning people · Motivating → change
Both necessary. Most orgs: OVER-managed + UNDER-led
Goleman: 5 EI Components
EI = sine qua non of leadership (IQ = threshold only)
Self-awareness: Know your emotions, strengths, limits
Self-regulation: Control impulses; think before acting
Motivation: Drive beyond money & status; resilient
Empathy: Read others; cross-cultural skill
Social skill: Build relationships; manage networks
Self-awareness: Know your emotions, strengths, limits
Self-regulation: Control impulses; think before acting
Motivation: Drive beyond money & status; resilient
Empathy: Read others; cross-cultural skill
Social skill: Build relationships; manage networks
💡 EI can be learned – unlike IQ. Wolf Keller: high IQ/technical skill, low empathy → Brodsky situation.
Burris et al.
Employee Feedback → Action
7 Challenges
1. Making sense of all the data (volume)
2. Aligning diverse feedback channels
3. Separating signal from noise
4. Closing the loop – employees stop if no action follows
5. Manager capability to act on feedback
6. Balancing transparency with discretion
7. Sustaining momentum – not a one-time initiative
2. Aligning diverse feedback channels
3. Separating signal from noise
4. Closing the loop – employees stop if no action follows
5. Manager capability to act on feedback
6. Balancing transparency with discretion
7. Sustaining momentum – not a one-time initiative
⚠ If you ask, you MUST act. Gap between collecting and acting on feedback erodes trust and engagement.
Session 11 · ING Agile (A, B, C) / Kotter 8 Steps / McKinsey 4-part
Agile Transformation & Change Management
ING Netherlands · Spotify Model
ING Agile Transformation
The Spotify / Squad Structure
Squads: 8–10 people · autonomous · cross-functional · end-to-end responsibility
Tribes: ~150 people max · related squads
Chapters: Functional communities across squads (skill development)
Guilds: Cross-tribe communities of interest
Tribes: ~150 people max · related squads
Chapters: Functional communities across squads (skill development)
Guilds: Cross-tribe communities of interest
"Big Bang" Decision (A Case)
June 2015: all changes simultaneously, not incrementally
3,500 employees re-applied for 2,500 positions
Physical redesign: open offices (no private offices – including execs)
Full HR process redesign for agile context
Rationale: "If you wait until ready, you'll never move." (CEO)
Incremental → resistance builds → old structures persist
3,500 employees re-applied for 2,500 positions
Physical redesign: open offices (no private offices – including execs)
Full HR process redesign for agile context
Rationale: "If you wait until ready, you'll never move." (CEO)
Incremental → resistance builds → old structures persist
Orange Code – McKinsey 4-Part Change (C Case)
1. Reasoning: "Why change?" – logic & urgency
2. Role models: Senior leaders demonstrating new behaviours
3. Reinforcement: Systems, processes, rewards aligned to new behaviours
4. Skills: Training & development to close gaps
3 Orange Code behaviours:
• "Take it on and make it happen" (Responsibility)
• "Help others to be successful" (Collaboration)
• "Always a step ahead" (Agility)
2. Role models: Senior leaders demonstrating new behaviours
3. Reinforcement: Systems, processes, rewards aligned to new behaviours
4. Skills: Training & development to close gaps
3 Orange Code behaviours:
• "Take it on and make it happen" (Responsibility)
• "Help others to be successful" (Collaboration)
• "Always a step ahead" (Agility)
Beckhard & Harris (Session 9 Slides)
DVP – Change Readiness Formula
When is change possible?
CHANGE = D × V × P > Cost of Change
D = Dissatisfaction with status quo (WHY change?)
V = Vision of desired state (WHERE are we going?)
P = Practical first steps (HOW do we get there?)
⚠ Multiply – if any factor = 0, no change happens
Types of Change:
• Evolutionary (incremental): slow, bottom-up, durable
• Revolutionary (transformational): fast, top-down, mandated – less culturally rooted
D = Dissatisfaction with status quo (WHY change?)
V = Vision of desired state (WHERE are we going?)
P = Practical first steps (HOW do we get there?)
⚠ Multiply – if any factor = 0, no change happens
Types of Change:
• Evolutionary (incremental): slow, bottom-up, durable
• Revolutionary (transformational): fast, top-down, mandated – less culturally rooted
💡 Resistance sources: unclear reason, fear of unknown, lack of competence, not consulted, poor communication, loss of autonomy. Diagnose before intervening.
Kotter · HBR 2007
8 Steps – Why Transformation Fails
The 8 Steps – In Order (Skipping = Illusion of Speed)
1. Urgency: Examine realities; identify crises or opportunities
2. Coalition: Powerful guiding coalition with credibility + authority
3. Vision: Clear, simple, motivating – communicable in 5 minutes
4. Communicate: 10× more than you think; leader as role model
5. Empower: Remove obstacles; change systems undermining vision
6. Short-term wins: Plan for visible, unambiguous victories
7. Consolidate: Don't declare victory too soon; build on credibility
8. Anchor: Embed in culture; show link to organisational success
2. Coalition: Powerful guiding coalition with credibility + authority
3. Vision: Clear, simple, motivating – communicable in 5 minutes
4. Communicate: 10× more than you think; leader as role model
5. Empower: Remove obstacles; change systems undermining vision
6. Short-term wins: Plan for visible, unambiguous victories
7. Consolidate: Don't declare victory too soon; build on credibility
8. Anchor: Embed in culture; show link to organisational success
⚠ Most common failure: declaring victory after first wins (Step 6 → early exit). Culture changes LAST, not first – it's the output, not the input.
ING B Case
McKinsey 3 Horizons + PACE
Three Innovation Horizons
H1: Mature businesses → incremental innovation
H2: High-growth businesses → scaling
H3: New ventures → breakthrough potential
H2: High-growth businesses → scaling
H3: New ventures → breakthrough potential
ING's 3 Innovation Priorities
1. Disrupt the core business
2. Go beyond banking (customer-centric, not product-centric)
3. Become a platform
PACE = Lean startup + Design thinking + Agile scrum → delivered via "accelerator" programmes
2. Go beyond banking (customer-centric, not product-centric)
3. Become a platform
PACE = Lean startup + Design thinking + Agile scrum → delivered via "accelerator" programmes
Case Application – Session 11
ING Agile Transformation (A, B, C) · Session 11
A: Big bang structural transformation (squads/tribes). B: Innovation via PACE. C: Orange Code cultural transformation.
Key tension: Big bang = high risk but avoids death by incrementalism. Culture + structure must co-evolve – one without the other fails.
Key tension: Big bang = high risk but avoids death by incrementalism. Culture + structure must co-evolve – one without the other fails.
Spotify Model · McKinsey 4-part · Kotter 8 Steps · S11
Marie Jackson – Renfield Farms · Session 9
Theme: Turnaround leadership + change management in fragmented dairy industry. Vision formulation fraught with strife and resistance from legacy culture.
Apply: Kotter 8 steps (urgency = industry decline; coalition = leadership team; vision = new direction). Affiliative style to build trust; Authoritative to set vision. Conger persuasion for stakeholder buy-in.
Apply: Kotter 8 steps (urgency = industry decline; coalition = leadership team; vision = new direction). Affiliative style to build trust; Authoritative to set vision. Conger persuasion for stakeholder buy-in.
Kotter · Leadership Styles · Persuasion · Baron & Kreps · S9/11
Session 12 · Cascio / Amazon Automation
Restructuring & Automation
Cascio
Responsible Restructuring
Evidence Against Downsizing
• Downsizing firms do NOT consistently outperform
• Survivor syndrome: guilt, anxiety, reduced commitment
• Institutional knowledge loss is irreplaceable
• Short-term savings offset by rehiring, overtime, morale costs
• Survivor syndrome: guilt, anxiety, reduced commitment
• Institutional knowledge loss is irreplaceable
• Short-term savings offset by rehiring, overtime, morale costs
Responsible Alternatives
• Redeploy rather than terminate; use natural attrition
• Retrain & reskill
• Redesign work – don't just cut headcount
• Maintain procedural + distributive justice
• Communicate transparently and early
• Retrain & reskill
• Redesign work – don't just cut headcount
• Maintain procedural + distributive justice
• Communicate transparently and early
5 Evaluation Questions (Always Ask)
1. Is layoff the right tool, or are there alternatives?
2. Impact on survivors?
3. Is procedural justice maintained?
4. What institutional knowledge is lost?
5. Aligns with long-term strategy, or just short-term cost target?
2. Impact on survivors?
3. Is procedural justice maintained?
4. What institutional knowledge is lost?
5. Aligns with long-term strategy, or just short-term cost target?
Amazon / Acemoglu
Automation & Workforce Impact
Key Numbers
Goal: automate 75% of operations
Avoid hiring 160,000+ in US by 2027
Shreveport template: 1,000 robots → ¼ fewer workers
Savings: $0.30/item = $12.6B from 2025–2027
Avoid hiring 160,000+ in US by 2027
Shreveport template: 1,000 robots → ¼ fewer workers
Savings: $0.30/item = $12.6B from 2025–2027
Strategic & Ethical Implications
New roles: robotics techs $24.45 vs. warehouse $19.50 – but far fewer positions
Disproportionate impact on workers of colour (3× more likely Black)
"Once Amazon proves profitable automation, it spreads" – Acemoglu
Language management: "cobot" and "advanced technology" used instead of "AI"/"automation"
Disproportionate impact on workers of colour (3× more likely Black)
"Once Amazon proves profitable automation, it spreads" – Acemoglu
Language management: "cobot" and "advanced technology" used instead of "AI"/"automation"
Course Connections
Baron & Kreps: Technology factor rewrites the alignment equation
Good Jobs Strategy: Automation → cMin by default unless designed otherwise
Cascio: Amazon approach contrasts sharply with responsible restructuring
Good Jobs Strategy: Automation → cMin by default unless designed otherwise
Cascio: Amazon approach contrasts sharply with responsible restructuring
Integrated Reference – Course Reference Ch 11
Cross-Case Quick Reference Matrix
Course Reference · Ch 11
Every Case – Theme · Framework · Lesson · Watch For
| Case | Session | Theme | Primary Framework(s) | Core Lesson | Red Flag / Watch For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southwest Airlines | S1–2 | System Design | Baron & Kreps · Meyer | Coherence > best practices. All practices mutually reinforcing. | Culture doesn't sustain itself during growth – must be deliberate. |
| Mike Miller (A) | S3 | Managing Up + Power | Managing Your Boss · Power Dynamics | New managers must map political landscape and manage upward proactively. | Assuming merit speaks for itself. Ignoring boss's work style. |
| Jennifer Henderson | S3–4 | Job Design | JCM · MPS | Fix jobs before blaming people. Autonomy = 0 → MPS collapses. | Supervisors as "super-analysts" – destroying autonomy. |
| Pirate Organisation | S3–4 | Governance | Institutional Design | Well-designed governance aligns self-interested actors. Concentrated authority → predation. | Assuming governance principles only apply in formal corporate settings. |
| SG Cowen | S5 | Recruiting | Info Asymmetry · Signalling · Cultural Fit | Align recruiting to market position. Dissenting voices must be heard. | Vague "chemistry" criteria → bias. Overruling hiring committee dissenters. |
| Woolworths | S6 | Evaluation | JCM (autonomy) · Appraisal Politics · Transparency Paradox | Over-monitoring destroys intrinsic motivation. "Coaching" label doesn't change a control system. | Measurable ≠ important. Gaming metrics ≠ genuine performance. |
| Safelite Auto Glass | S7 | Compensation / PFP | PFP Design · Pfeffer · cMin vs. iMax | PFP works when output individually measurable & quality verifiable. Sorting effect = key. | Applying PFP in jobs without clear individual metrics → gaming. |
| SAS Institute | S8 | Alternative Rewards | JCM · Psych Safety · Pfeffer Myths | Intrinsic motivation can replace PFP. Low turnover savings fund benefits → virtuous cycle. | Not portable to all contexts. Works best for knowledge workers. |
| Morning Star | S9 | Self-Management | CLOUs · Peer Accountability | Self-management ≠ no management. Replaces hierarchy with peer coordination. | Zombie structures. Free-rider problem without clear accountability. |
| Wolfgang Keller | S4–5 | Manager Role · Styles | Leadership Styles · EI · PM Revolution | Style mismatch kills performance relationships. EI matters more than technical skill. | Assuming own communication style is universal. Rushing to fire before diagnosing. |
| Google Project Oxygen | S10 | Manager Role | 8 Behaviours · Coaching | Coaching > technical expertise. Empowerment > micromanagement. | Promoting best individual contributors to manager = often a mismatch. |
| Netflix Culture | S10 | Culture + Incentives | F&R · Top of Market Pay | Real values = who you reward/promote/fire. Freedom needs demonstrated responsibility. | "Adequate performance = severance." Not right for every org type. |
| ING Agile (A, B, C) | S11 | Change + Org Design | Spotify · McKinsey 4-part · Kotter | Culture + structure must co-evolve. Big bang avoids death by incrementalism – but high risk. | Agile as trend not tool. Physical redesign without cultural change = cosmetic. |
| Marie Jackson | S9/11 | Change + Leadership | Kotter 8 Steps · Leadership Styles · Persuasion | Turnaround needs urgency + coalition + vision first. Affiliative style builds trust in resistance. | Declaring victory too early. Not communicating vision enough (10× minimum). |
| Amazon Automation | S12 | Restructuring + Tech | Cascio · Baron & Kreps (tech factor) | Technology rewrites alignment equation. Automation → cMin by default unless designed otherwise. | Disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups. Language hiding reality ("cobots"). |
Quick Reference
Key Formulas, One-Liners & Framework Selector
JCM + Groysberg + Ton
Key Formulas
MPS – Motivating Potential Score
MPS = [(SV + TI + TS) ÷ 3] × Autonomy × Feedback
SV = Skill Variety · TI = Task Identity · TS = Task Significance
⚠ Autonomy OR Feedback = 0 → MPS = ZERO
SV = Skill Variety · TI = Task Identity · TS = Task Significance
⚠ Autonomy OR Feedback = 0 → MPS = ZERO
Groysberg: The Portability Formula
Performance = Talent × Organisational Context
Ton: Two Paths
cMin: Low cost → bad jobs → high turnover → cycle repeats
iMax: Higher investment → good jobs → low turnover → virtuous cycle
iMax: Higher investment → good jobs → low turnover → virtuous cycle
Multiple Sources
One-Line Definitions to Cite in Exam
Psych Safety: "Felt permission for candour" – Edmondson
EI: Sine qua non of leadership – Goleman
Leadership: Setting direction · Aligning people · Motivating – Kotter
Management: Planning · Organising · Controlling – Kotter
Portability Myth: Stars depend on the system, not just talent – Groysberg
Real culture: "Who you reward, promote, or fire" – Netflix
CLOUs: Bilateral agreements replacing job descriptions – Morning Star
Zombie structures: Old hierarchical habits persisting after formal restructuring – Anicich
Survivor syndrome: Guilt, anxiety, reduced commitment in remaining employees – Cascio
Productive deviance: Experimenting with improvements before explaining to management – Bernstein
EI: Sine qua non of leadership – Goleman
Leadership: Setting direction · Aligning people · Motivating – Kotter
Management: Planning · Organising · Controlling – Kotter
Portability Myth: Stars depend on the system, not just talent – Groysberg
Real culture: "Who you reward, promote, or fire" – Netflix
CLOUs: Bilateral agreements replacing job descriptions – Morning Star
Zombie structures: Old hierarchical habits persisting after formal restructuring – Anicich
Survivor syndrome: Guilt, anxiety, reduced commitment in remaining employees – Cascio
Productive deviance: Experimenting with improvements before explaining to management – Bernstein
Course Reference · Ch 11
Framework Selector – Decision Tree
High turnover / disengagement?
→ JCM (compute MPS) + Psych Safety
Bad hires / wrong person?
→ Info asymmetry + Portability myth + SG Cowen
Pay not working?
→ Pfeffer 6 myths + PFP checklist + cMin/iMax
Resistance to change?
→ Kotter 8 steps + McKinsey 4-part + Big bang vs. incremental
Performance system failing?
→ PM Revolution + Politics of appraisal
New leader struggling?
→ Managing your boss + Power dynamics + EI (Goleman)
HR practices inconsistent?
→ Baron & Kreps 5-factor (always the master lens first)
Layoffs / restructuring?
→ Cascio responsible restructuring
Culture not working?
→ Meyer framework + Netflix F&R + Psych Safety matrix
→ JCM (compute MPS) + Psych Safety
Bad hires / wrong person?
→ Info asymmetry + Portability myth + SG Cowen
Pay not working?
→ Pfeffer 6 myths + PFP checklist + cMin/iMax
Resistance to change?
→ Kotter 8 steps + McKinsey 4-part + Big bang vs. incremental
Performance system failing?
→ PM Revolution + Politics of appraisal
New leader struggling?
→ Managing your boss + Power dynamics + EI (Goleman)
HR practices inconsistent?
→ Baron & Kreps 5-factor (always the master lens first)
Layoffs / restructuring?
→ Cascio responsible restructuring
Culture not working?
→ Meyer framework + Netflix F&R + Psych Safety matrix
LEADING PEOPLE & CHANGE · READY RECKONER v2