Words: 1709
What was Sheen’s perception of his meeting with shorter? In previous meetings between Chem. and Shorter, in January and June, Shorter turned down Sheen’s request to move to the tax division, citing inadequate audit experience. However, Chem. met with Shorter two more times after the June meeting, and he persisted that he be moved to the tax division. Shorter eventually promised to move Chem. to the tax division with the condition that Chem. had to do auditing for one year.
Although in the previous meetings Shorter wanted Chem. to work in auditing he gave allowances to his tank and let Chem. move to tax after two completing two months of audit work. Until this point though Shorter was resisting his requests Chem. finally got what he wanted. 2. What was Sheen’s attribution of his not being assigned to tax? Chem. did not have enough auditing experience, according to company policy, to be assigned a tax assignment. Also Chem. was part of the company strategy to attract Hong Kong clients and his tax interests did not fall in line with the company’s interest. . Why did Chem. refuse to do the Softies audit? The soft disk audit was not initially chosen by Chem., it was forced on him by Mike, ho insisted that it falls in line with his tax assignment goals. Chem. was in a position where he could not refuse the task given to him due to company policy and given the fact he has not much tax work available for him to do, he didn’t have a choice but to accept the Job. Chem. mentions that he would leave the firm rather than work for Mike, but the exact reasons are not specified as to his statements. 4.
What did Shorter think about Sheen’s career steps? Shorter had two goals for Bob, who passed the auditing exam on his first attempt. First, Chem. can be trained to be a senior auditor. Second, Shorter thought that Chem. was a “keeper. ” Also, Shorter felt Sheen’s auditing skill needed sharpening. When Chem. repeatedly asked for tax Jobs, Shorter was impressed that Chem. was interested in his career and committed to James-Williams. At the second request, Shorter allowed Chem. to move to tax but with the condition that he had to some audits during the first years.
Shorter was hoping Chem. will be a very useful link in attracting business from Hong Kong, given his talent and Chinese language skills. 5. What did Chem. think about his own career? Chem. was quiet and shy and his politeness meant that he didn’t say what he wanted out of a situation or from a person. Chem., after completing his C. A, wanted a tax specialization. He was open to the idea of developing Hong Kong practice but in the meantime he was keen on learning tax. His reason for issues that eventually threatens his Jobs security at James-Williams includes his unwillingness to work for Mike and scheduling conflicts.
Diagnosis 6. Why are Sorter’s and Sheen’s perceptions different? Communicating his thoughts clearly and effectively to Shorter. Chem. was telling Shorter that he would be fine with working in audit for another year, but he was thinking something else, as evident by his continued persistence to switch to tax. The two also had different perceptions about how to best advance Sheen’s career. Shorter has seen employees fail in the past because of limited audit experience, so he perceived audit as the best route for Chem. to take.
Also, role schemas help to explain the differences in perception. Since Chem. was a newer employee, it was not typical for someone in his role to turn down assignments. Shorter didn’t believe this type of behavior would be appropriate for Sheen’s position, so he didn’t perceive that this behavior would happen. Also, since Shorter viewed Chem. quite highly, a person schema belief system was in place. He had a preconceived idea of how Chem. would act when presented with his career track in audit representative of his high view of Chem..
In this case, belief confirmation bias occurred because Shorter attended to the schema, although it was inconsistent with Sheen’s actual thoughts and behavior. 7. What perceptual distortions occurred? The two main perceptual distortions that occurred in this case were the halo effect ND the horn effect. Shorter viewed Chem. very highly based on the fact that he was a solid performer. Because Shorter knew this positive characteristic about Chem., he assumed he would eventually develop into a good partner for the firm.
This also made it difficult for Shorter to ultimately make the decision about what he should do with Chem. after hearing about his behavior while Shorter was on vacation. The horn effect applies to the other employees’ views of Chem.. They only knew him through their interactions with him regarding the Softies audit, and because he was not draughtswoman with them about his decision to not take the audit, these partners and managers viewed Chem. as a poor performer overall. They felt that since Chem. was a newer employee, he shouldn’t turn down assignments from partners.
This one negative behavior of Chem. caused their perception of him be distorted negatively. 8. What were Sheen’s, Sorter’s, and the other managers’ attribution of Sheen’s refusal to perform the Softies audit? The attribution process deals with how we Judge the causes of people’s behavior. Internal attribution is the idea that the person caused he behavior. External attribution is the idea that a situation caused the behavior. The other manager’s attribution of Sheen’s refusal to perform the Softies audit is viewed as an internal attribution, or personal cause.
They felt that other employees of Sheen’s rank should not turn down assignments from partners, especially if they already accepted it when speaking with the partner, so consensus was low. Also, because they only know Chem. in this situation, and because of the perceptual distortion of the horn effect, they may believe that distinctiveness is low and that Chem. behaves like this across various different situations. Lastly, because Chem. continued to accept the audit when speaking with Mike, but tell the other he wasn’t going to take it, they felt that consistency of this behavior over time was high.
Therefore, the other managers viewed Sheen’s behavior as a personal cause. Shorter, however, may have had a bit of a different attribution to Sheen’s refusal because he to this particular situation, making distinctiveness high. Shorter also knew that this behavior was not consistent over time with Chem., so consistency was low. This may dead Shorter to attribute cause to the situation; however, consensus is still low because it isn’t typical for someone in Sheen’s position to turn down this assignment.
This may lead Shorter to be in between the two different causes, but possible leaning more towards a situational cause because he thinks highly of Chem. and knows him well. Chem. attributed his cause to the situation. Like Shorter, Chem. knew that this behavior was unique to the situation of the Softies audit, so distinctiveness was high. Although this behavior did continuously occur over time during the period scribed, it may have been because Chem. was still in the same situation while Shorter was on vacation.
Even though Chem. is probably aware that most employees do not turn down assignments from partners (low consensus), the actor-observer bias may be in effect, which is described below. 9. What attribution biases occurred? The fundamental attribution error bias occurred in this case. This happens when personal causes are overestimated and situational causes are underestimated. Based on the attribution process discussed above, Jane, Mike, and Joe all overestimated Sheen’s personal causes. They assumed that Chem. didn’t want to take the Softies audit because he wanted to solely focus on tax for his own personal gain.
Since their perception of Chem. was distorted by the horn effect they attributed this negative behavior to Sheen’s personality. The managers underestimated the situational causes of Sheen’s actions. In this case, Sheen’s actions were based on the situation in which he was placed. Chem. did not want to work with the manager Mike, but the other managers failed to see this situational cause because of their negative perception of Chem.. The actor-observer effect may have occurred as well. This bias is he idea that we do not do the fundamental attribution error when explaining our own behavior.
In this case, Chem. may have overestimated his situational cause with Mike, and failed to see or explain that maybe it was more of a personal cause because he really wanted to only work in tax. 10. Do cross-cultural differences explain the perceptual and attribution differences? Cross-cultural differences may somewhat explain the perceptual and attribution differences between the employees at James-Williams. Although Mike thought there shouldn’t be any cultural differences because Chem. was westernizes, it is still likely hat they may be the cause.
For example, there may be communication differences between the two cultures. In Sheen’s culture, it might be polite to accept an assignment even if you do not want to. However, because Chem. was westernizes to some extent, this may be attributed to his going behind managers’ backs and stating the opposite of what he was telling them to their face, simply as a form of expressing how he truly feels. Also, in Sheen’s culture it is more typical to take longer to reach business decisions, rather than Just quickly choosing something.
Quickly made equines decisions may be viewed negatively as hasty. Perhaps Chem. still had some of this part of his culture within his lifestyle, which would explain why he wasn’t possible that this type of situation could have happened if Chem. had not been from a culture different from the managers. What theories and concepts help explain the problems? Equity theory and goal setting theory help to explain the problems that occurred in this case. Equity theory is based on the comparison of an individual’s inputs versus his or her outcomes to those of another individual. Prescription