+1 862 207 3288 Here is a copy of the requirements:
The paper needs to be based upon the EMI guidelines attached below in Materials.
1.1 Study Harvard Business School Case no. 409-090 “Barbara Norris: Leading Change in the General Surgery Unit”,
bearing in mind the guidelines given in the HBS note “Learning by the Case Method”, Compendium pages 116-119.
1.2 In 2000-2500 words write the status report mentioned on page 5 of the case study that Barbara Norris has to make to her
superior, suggesting which EMI concepts (guiding principles, guidelines and exercises) you would use to address the list of
items that most frustrated or de-motivated her staff which Barbara Norris made.
(see page 4 of the case study), i.e.
1. Our culture does not value collaboration and teamwork
2. In GSU you cannot count on others to help you
3. Our work isn’t acknowledged and our contribution often does not feel valued
4. Our job is becoming more administration centered rather than patient centered
5. We do not have enough opportunity to learn and grow
6. Our performance review system is a mystery and does not seem to actually reward good performers
7. Many assignments are given based on relationships and favouritism
8. We have little input on matters that affect us greatly
9. We feel no one truly defends our interests or advocates on our behalf
Give examples of specific problems you have pin pointed in the case study and explain your reasons for your choice of
EMI concepts.
2. (45% of your grade for the Written Course Assignment).
Please state whether you have at least one subordinate or not and drawing from your AIBs and other recent MI experience, please present in a
total 1500-2000 words:
2.1 a problem which, due to your effective Verbal or Non Verbal Interactive Behaviour was successfully addressed, and precisely
how.
2.2 a problem which, due to your ineffective Verbal or Non Verbal Interactive Behaviour you did not deal with successfully, and
precisely how.
2.3 a problem which arose as a result of an ineffective interaction and the specific steps you took in order to
improve the effectiveness of the specific interaction.
Your accounts should include the following:
a) Description. Mention exactly what happened. It is very important to be as specific as possible. For example, rather than
using adjectives to convey the verbal and/or non-verbal interactive behaviour of yourself or of a superior, or of a peer or of a
subordinate interacted, write down exactly what you or he/she did. Do not say «I was arrogant» say «I asked for a report and instead
of listening to what he/she did about the problem, I kept asking her/him: why did you not do… X or Y?»
b) Analysis. Try to pinpoint the verbal and and/or non verbal behaviours which you think affected favorably or unfavorably
the effectiveness of the interactions you describe. Analyze the situation in terms of the attitudes and feelings of the
interacting individuals (including yourself) towards the issues discussed and towards each other. Pinpoint behaviours and/or outcomes
that surprised you and explain the difference/s between what you expected and what actually happened. Finally, consider the
interaction in terms of trust between yourself and your counterpart/s i.e. issues which you felt that he/she did not trust you enough,
or you felt that he/she proved untrustworthy, or issues in which trust was established and/or worked positively for both sides.
c) One of the problems (2.1, 2.2 or 2.3) must include a description of precisely how the current crisis affects
the applicability of EMI in your case for every one of the three modes of your MIs, explaining its effects on them in terms of
interdependence and of trust.
