Name choose it due to the concept of

Name & discussion section number: Abdulaziz AlFulaij  (#14746)
 
 

Case name: Dave Armstrong (A)
 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The case facts (brief summary; 2-4 sentences of what’s happening
and who’s involved):
 
Dave Armstrong, MBA student at Harvard Business School, has three
more months until his graduation and he is in a dilemma in trying to figure
out what he is going to do for a living in the foreseeable future. Within the
case, he provides three job offers, Job A, Job B, and Job C, where he weighs
the pros and cons of each. Dave voices his personal concerns and issues with
each prospective job offer as well as how each one would satisfy or go
against him.

The issues/potential main problem (main issues in OB terms
related to the module):
 
The main issue that Dave Armstrong is facing is to come up with
the best possible decision for his future job. The PROACT model applies to
this situation where Dave faces a decision that involves creating objectives,
analyzing alternatives, consequences, and tradeoffs of each job, and
considering his risk tolerance to each of the scenarios. Due to the contrast
effect, the job offers all by themselves would make them easier to pick from,
but contrasting them to one another put Dave into a dilemma.
 
Starting with Job A, Dave is eager to choose it due to the
concept of homo-economicus, where he specifically says, “Job A is the one I
really want, since it has the most upside potential.” Dave’s thought of
gaining 50K-70K adding to profit sharing makes this job prospect his most
favorable. On the other hand, he is hesitant due to the idea of
bounded-rationality, where he is not only thinking of the profits, but also
he is fearful and concerned with the time-limits that he has associated to
his decision making. Also, the availability of heuristic might effect certain
stages of his decision. Dave might have some potential fear in making a bad
decision to work for Mr. Thorne since he already worked for him. Sunk cost
error might be a consequence where he might lose more money than his initial
investment if things go wrong.  
 
In terms of Job B, Dave is thrilled to meet a lot of potential
buyers and enter into equity deals with them in the future to make long-term
businesses. However, his overconfidence might be an issue because he is
tending to overlook that investors might oversee him and not be interested in
a long-term business. Lastly for Job C, it seems like the safest opportunity
but in the other hand it won’t open up for a while but he would get $45K for
another job until then.
 

Three questions or comments I want to make in class:
1.  How big of an effect
does his wife have on his decision making process?
 
2. Is there a perfectly rational solution to this?
 
3. Long term objectives will allow Dave to clear up some
uncertainties.

Additional information/Relevant theories & concepts that may
apply:
–      
It is possible that
“planning fallacy” might be applied, meaning he may underestimate the effort
of each job he has to put into.
–      
Impulsivity might be an
issue where Dave is choosing relatively quickly and might overlook some long-term
career objectives.
–      
There’s also fear that with
hindsight bias he’ll realize he made the wrong decision.