Case Study
Description Marks out of Wtg(%) Due date
Case study 1
(2000 words – plus or minus 10%) 100 40% Monday 15 December 2016 by 11.55pm AEST
Individual Case Study 1
Problem Statement:
You need to consider how you will identify the range of issues and problems in the following problem statement.
Boutique Hotel Company (BHCo) ©
Please Note: This problem statement is fictional. Any resemblance to actual names and places is purely coincidental. The case problem is for the advanced study of MBA and Masters Student’s studying Strategic Leadership.
Problem statement: Carrie Worth is a CEO for a Boutique Hotel, called BHCo. The hotel is located on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland and provides customers with a unique luxury beach hotel accommodation experience. BHCo prides itself on excellent customer service, luxury dining experience (5 star restaurant), exquisite room service, free internet connection, and an expensive range of toiletries in all suites. The foyer displays original works of art on the walls. The hotel annual turnover is $100million AUD with a profit of approximately $10million AUD and rising with a share price of approximately $5.00. With a consistent and steady profit increase over a period of 5 years including relatively stable management, Worth has joined the company to replace the existing CEO Ben Jones. The Board consists of 12 members (there are 11 male and one female) and they all enjoyed a good working relationship with Ben Jones. However, since Worth has joined, she has consistently complained about ineffective senior management at the hotel indicating that staff were not working to capacity, plant and equipment were not being repaired in a timely manner and there was no maintenance routines in place. Worth’s leadership behaviours could be described as aggressive, getting the job done regardless and controlling every operational aspect of the hotel management.
Worth wants to move from a ‘relaxed’ pace to a more vigorous pace including revising the departmental structure of the 600 hotel staff to increase accountability and improve communication among the various departments. She also want to put strict systems and procedures in place to ensure that the hotel is running smoothly and efficiently. Worth wants to reward employees for the tasks they perform and she wants to pay attention to the finest details of running the hotel herself. Worth prides herself on ensuring both employee and customer safety are a priority with a particular focus on providing safe equipment and delivering fresh and safe food services.
Worth’s leadership style is different to that of the previous CEO - Ben Jones. Jones was liked by all employees. He was a people person, willing to go the extra mile for people when they needed help and yet he was able to set clear goals and milestones. Because of Jones’ relaxed personality, employees were understanding when he had to get tough about their individual work performance.
Worth feels the opportunity is right for the company to invest in improving outdated equipment and technology which will add value to the assets of the hotel. She believes that the previous CEO was ‘too relaxed’ and that ‘things were let go’ with regard to maintenance and repairs and a failure to attend to the operational ‘details’! Worth also hopes to streamline processes to ensure efficiencies and cut red tape. However, the Board disagree with her ideas and they regard them as being an unnecessary cost and too expensive. They do not see why these changes need to be made. Worth wants to improve facilities at BHCo to provide the customer with the luxurious experience that they advertise and she suggests that this will increase the share price based on higher growth and higher profits leading to stronger profit and growth forecasts by market analysts.
Problems became elevated when during the end of month Board meeting, Worth disagreed vocally with the Chairperson on future company strategy. The Chair convinces other members that Worth’s strategies are too expensive at this time and that her ideas are unnecessary. Worth has fears that the Board is trying to overprotect the shareholders who want increasing returns on their investments. To Worth’s credit, she emphasizes the importance of a safe environment for customers and employees and she unveils a detailed future Strategic Plan of company activities going forward. Surprisingly, she manages to receive some support from the Board but not overwhelming support. To make matters worse, Worth is confronted with complaints from senior staff who complain directly to the Board about her leadership style. She decides that there is significant conflict as a result of the manner in which she operates. In an effort to manage this situation, Worth decides to consult you as the company’s Director for Leadership and Change. She seeks your advice about what strategies are open to her in dealing with these issues. © Jane Boeske USQ School of Management and Enterprise
You should write the case study in such a way that you start your answers from line 1. That is, there is no need for large introductions that we see in essays. You should use the readings/chapters that have been specifically prescribed for each task. The readings are on the study desk for all students to access. You should apply the principles you have learned from lecture material/tutorials/readings that are specific to the case study. Case study 1 answers should be written in narrative form (i.e. sentences not bullet points), and should be 2000 in length and single spaced. You should use at least 10 references as set out in the Guidelines to Case Study 1 on the Study Desk.
Task Required:
Based on less than perfect information supplied about BHCo problem statement, where you may need to fill in the ‘facts’ by adding more assumptions that you think may assist you in solving case issues, you are required to act as the Company’s Director of Leadership and Change to address the issues and challenges:
Required:
1. Based on Reading 1.6 Boal & Hooijberg (2001) and Reading 2.6 Flood, Hannan, Smith and Turner (2000) explain the leadership style of the CEO Carrie Worth from the BHCo case. How does her leadership style relate to other styles outlined in these two readings and other literature? (700 words)
2. Explain and discuss how leaders can change leadership styles. In reference to the BHCo case, should the CEO (Carrie Worth) change her leadership style? Ensure you reference George (2015) Chapter 5 in your answer. (700 words)
3. What should the CEO – Carrie Worth do next? How should she do this and what other factors may be involved (culture, the Board members, key stakeholders and so on) (600 words)
Based on your analysis of BHCo in Case Study, you are also required to continue your advice to the CEO Carrie Worth. Assuming less than perfect information where you may need to fill in the ‘facts’ by adding more assumptions that you think may assist you in solving case issues, you are required to:
4. Advise Carrie Worth about any issues she should be aware of with regard to Positive Agency Theory and Stakeholder Theory. You need to use Solomon (2013) Chapters 1 and 2 in your answer in addition to other literature here. (700 words)
5. Based on reading 4.1 Chapman (2002) and reading 4.2 Tosey & Robinson (2002) what are the key strengths of transformational leadership and change and how can Carrie Worth use these ideas to convince a skeptical Board? (700 words)
6. Based on your analysis of BHCo, adapt and redraw Figure 6.2 Solomon’s framework for corporate risk disclosure (Solomon 2013 p 174). Explain your analysis in relation to Solomon (2013) Chapter 6 and Behan (2011) Chapters 1 and 2 using the case scenario. You should use additional references as well. (600 words)
Note: Please use the specific readings as outlined above. All theory based on the readings in Module 1 , 2 ,3 and 4 including your texts and references included on the Study Desk. Please use both the George and Solomon texts and the readings .Please use the style guide below for listing and quoting references. More marks will be gained by students showing additional evidence of readings in their case answer by using theory in ways that solve the problem. Please see marking criteria and guidelines below.
Note: These marking criteria will be used to assess your case study. To achieve a high mark with this case study, students will need to demonstrate additional research and critical analysis of this research.
Marking Criteria Sheet and Guidelines
Name: Student Number: Mark: / 100 or / 40
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50% – 64% CREDIT
65% – 74% DISTINCTION
75% – 84% HIGH
DISTINCTION
85% and over TOTAL
Task 1
Based on Reading 1.6 Boal & Hooijberg (2001) and Reading 2.6 Flood, Hannan, Smith and Turner (2000) explain the leadership style of the CEO from BHCo case. How does her leadership style relate to other styles outlined in these two readings and other literature.
(700 words) Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question/s. Not all issues relevant to the question/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the prescribed text/journal articles as the primary theory source. No integration of theory to the case example. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included less than the prescribed number of credible theory sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Basic to fair understanding of question/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. May be some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in theory.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.
Citations were mostly from the text/prescribed journal readings
Included some irrelevant material. Sound understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question. Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in theory/ies.
Uses the full number of prescribed references,
Only minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.
Strong understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the questions.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions.
A good selection of scholarly sources.
Accurate Harvard referencing Unequivocal understanding of theory/ies.
Excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question/s.
Goes beyond the prescribed number of references.
References well selected, interpreted & clearly integrated.
Accurate Harvard referencing.
MARK / 30 15 15 – 19 19.5 – 22 22.5 – 25 25.5 +
Task 2
Explain and discuss how leaders can change leadership styles. In reference to the BHCo case, should the CEO change her leadership style?
Ensure you reference George (2015) Chapter 5 in your answer.
(700 words) Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question/s. Not all issues relevant to the question/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the prescribed text/journal articles as the primary theory source. No integration of theory to the case example. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included less than the prescribed number of credible theory sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Basic to fair understanding of question/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. May be some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in theory.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.
Citations were mostly from the text/prescribed journal readings
Included some irrelevant material. Sound understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question. Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in theory/ies.
Uses the full number of prescribed references,
Only minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.
Strong understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the questions.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions.
A good selection of scholarly sources.
Accurate Harvard referencing Unequivocal understanding of theory/ies.
Excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question/s.
Goes beyond the prescribed number of references.
References well selected, interpreted & clearly integrated.
Accurate Harvard referencing
MARK / 30 15 15 – 19 19.5 – 22 22.5 – 25 25.5 +

Task 3
What should the CEO – Carrie Worth do next? How should she do this and what other factors may be involved (culture, the Board members, key stakeholders)
(600 words) Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question/s. Not all issues relevant to the question/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the prescribed text/journal articles as the primary theory source. No integration of theory to the case example. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included less than the prescribed number of credible theory sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Basic to fair understanding of question/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. May be some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in theory.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.
Citations were mostly from the text/prescribed journal readings
Included some irrelevant material. Sound understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question. Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in theory/ies.
Uses the full number of prescribed references,
Only minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.
Strong understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the questions.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions.
A good selection of scholarly sources.
Accurate Harvard referencing Unequivocal understanding of theory/ies.
Excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question/s.
Goes beyond the prescribed number of references.
References well selected, interpreted & clearly integrated.
Accurate Harvard referencing
MARK / 30 15 15 – 19 19.5 - 22 22.5 – 25 25.5 +
Structure, written expression and presentation.
Poor structure and lacking logical progression of the theme. Not in report format. A lot of irrelevant content. Not adhering to assignment requirements.
Excessive spelling, grammatical errors, poor syntax. Poorly presented, a lot of typing errors. Not all required info included eg. page numbering and line spacing.
Over or under word count.
No or few references. Did not conform to Harvard AGPS referencing format. Some evidence of structure, progression of theme, intro, body, and conclusion. Theories not clearly integrated. Might have patches of irrelevant content.
Fair understanding of grammar, sentence & paragraph construction. Some spelling or typing errors. Margins too small/big cluttered or stark appearance.
Evidence of structure and progression of theme. May have some patches where theories need better integration. Might have minor irrelevant content.
Sound level of fluency in writing (may have one or two awkward sentences). No obvious errors in grammar or syntax. Well presented. Clear structure and progression of theme. Well constructed report that reinforces important key issues. Very good intro and conclusion. No irrelevant content.
Clear and fluent writing.
Professional presentation (not overdone). Within word limit. Structured, critical; argument; excellent intro & conclusion. Excellent development and flow of argument paragraph by paragraph. No irrelevant content.
Well constructed and crafted piece of work, a pleasure to read.
Professional presentation (not overdone). Within word limit.
MARK / 10 5 5 - 6 6.5 - 7 7.5 – 8 8.5 +
TOTAL: / 100
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50% – 64% CREDIT
65% – 74% DISTINCTION
75% – 84% HIGH
DISTINCTION
85% and over TOTAL
Task 1
Advise Carrie Worth about any issues she should be aware of with regard to Positive Agency Theory and Stakeholder Theory. You need to use Solomon (2013) Chapters 1 and 2 in your answer. (700 words) Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question/s. Not all issues relevant to the question/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the prescribed text/journal articles as the primary theory source. No integration of theory to the case example. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included less than the prescribed number of credible theory sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Basic to fair understanding of question/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. May be some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in theory.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.
Citations were mostly from the text/prescribed journal readings
Included some irrelevant material. Sound understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question. Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in theory/ies.
Uses the full number of prescribed references,
Only minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.
Strong understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the questions.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. A good selection of scholarly sources. Accurate Harvard referencing Unequivocal understanding of theory/ies.
Excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question/s.
Goes beyond the prescribed number of references.
References well selected, interpreted & clearly integrated.
Accurate Harvard referencing.
MARK / 30 15 15 – 19 19.5 – 22 22.5 – 25 25.5 +
Task 2
Based on reading 4.1 Chapman (2002) and reading 4.2 Tosey & Robinson (2002) what are the key strengths of transformational leadership and change and how can Carrie Worth use these ideas to convince a skeptical Board? (700 words) Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question/s. Not all issues relevant to the question/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the prescribed text/journal articles as the primary theory source. No integration of theory to the case example. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included less than the prescribed number of credible theory sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Basic to fair understanding of question/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. May be some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in theory.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.
Citations were mostly from the text/prescribed journal readings
Included some irrelevant material. Sound understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question. Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in theory/ies.
Uses the full number of prescribed references,
Only minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.
Strong understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the questions.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. A good selection of scholarly sources. Accurate Harvard referencing. Unequivocal understanding of theory/ies.
Excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question/s.
Goes beyond the prescribed number of references.
References well selected, interpreted & clearly integrated.
Accurate Harvard referencing
MARK / 30 15 15 – 19 19.5 – 22 22.5 – 25 25.5 +
Task 3
Based on your analysis of BHCo, adapt and redraw Figure 6.2 Solomon’s framework for corporate risk disclosure (Solomon 2013 p 174). Explain your analysis in relation to Solomon (2013) Chapter 6 and Behan (2011) Chapters 1 and 2 using the case scenario. You should use additional references as well. (600 words)
Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question/s. Not all issues relevant to the question/s have been answered. Misunderstood the assignment focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. Did not use the prescribed text/journal articles as the primary theory source. No integration of theory to the case example. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines). Included less than the prescribed number of credible theory sources (peer reviewed books, journal articles). Basic to fair understanding of question/s. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. May be some irrelevancies and or inaccuracies in theory.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references needs improvement.
Citations were mostly from the text/prescribed journal readings
Included some irrelevant material. Sound understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question. Rudimentary critical analysis. Maybe minor inaccuracies in theory/ies.
Uses the full number of prescribed references,
Only minor errors in Harvard AGPS referencing.
Strong understanding of the question/s. Answers all parts of each question but still misses critical analysis of some relevant issues pertaining to the questions.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions.
A good selection of scholarly sources.
Accurate Harvard referencing Unequivocal understanding of theory/ies.
Excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question/s.
Goes beyond the prescribed number of references.
References well selected, interpreted & clearly integrated.
Accurate Harvard referencing
MARK / 30 15 15 – 19 19.5 - 22 22.5 – 25 25.5 +
Structure, written expression and presentation.
Poor structure and lacking logical progression of the theme. Not in report format. A lot of irrelevant content. Not adhering to assignment requirements.
Excessive spelling, grammatical errors, poor syntax. Poorly presented, a lot of typing errors. Not all required info included eg. page numbering and line spacing.
Over or under word count.
No or few references. Did not conform to Harvard AGPS referencing format. Some evidence of structure, progression of theme, intro, body, and conclusion. Theories not clearly integrated. Might have patches of irrelevant content.
Fair understanding of grammar, sentence & paragraph construction. Some spelling or typing errors. Margins too small/big cluttered or stark appearance.
Evidence of structure and progression of theme. May have some patches where theories need better integration. Might have minor irrelevant content.
Sound level of fluency in writing (may have one or two awkward sentences). No obvious errors in grammar or syntax. Well presented. Clear structure and progression of theme. Well constructed report that reinforces important key issues. Very good intro and conclusion. No irrelevant content.
Clear and fluent writing.
Professional presentation (not overdone). Within word limit. Structured, critical; argument; excellent intro & conclusion. Excellent development and flow of argument paragraph by paragraph. No irrelevant content.
Well constructed and crafted piece of work, a pleasure to read.
Professional presentation (not overdone). Within word limit.
MARK / 10 5 5 - 6 6.5 - 7 7.5 - 8 8.5 +
TOTAL: / 100