Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Assignment Questions
1. What kinds of behaviour helped or hindered the group? Did people listen to each
other? if not why not?
The activity began with each person stating their own choice for the designation of CEO and
the alternative. It was followed by a rationale statement provided by each person to align and
convince everyone of the choice they have made. As everyone had a heterogeneous choice,
our group discussion was quite participative in nature. At the same time, everyone was
reflective about the inputs given by the other person in order to reach an agreeable decision
which in our opinion should be beyond personal bias or interest. We concluded the activity by
surpassing our own preferred choice as done in previous activity, to bring ourselves to a
better, collective and rational decision.
The names we finalised were a result of mutual consensus. Though in the beginning of the
discussion, everyone held their own strong opinions but after considerable discussion on each
candidates pros and cons, we finalised on the names which satisfied everyone, though it
might not have been each members initial choice.
2. Did any individual in your group influenced the decisions and how? Did any personal
prejudices become obvious as you completed this activity?
There were instances during the activity when some members of the team shared a personal
opinion/perception, but as everyone in the team was attentive to the fact of choosing a
candidate in an unbiased manner, we could conclude on a positive note. It can be said that our
decision was not influenced by any individual and was collective in nature.
Secondary factors were age, personal life and any other factor which could be linked to our
choice of candidate. We weighed our opinion in terms of relevance for both primary and
secondary factors and reached a decision which would cover every factor and provide a
holistic result.
4. Did your group identify the candidate who would be the least desirable CEO? If yes,
on what basis did your group make this choice?
Least desirable CEO would be Pritam Singh. Considering the primary factors (as mentioned
above), we observed that his behaviour had been quite questionable and unprofessional at
times. This in our view, would have influenced the perception of subordinates and high level
management. In terms of experience, a more varied experience would have helped in not
eliminating him.
5. Do you think your group could have made a better decision? If yes, in your opinion
what the group should have done?
With the extent of discussion everyone had, we believe our group has identified better
candidates. It is also to be appreciated that we could overcome our personal choices and
without any reservations, finalised on those candidates who figured high in terms of primary
factors and moderately in terms of secondary factors.