Content of the Case:
The Nina Case is an imaginative story of a professional woman at a her early phase of career. The story does not refer to any particular individual. However, the story has a close real-life connection, since it was constructed drawing upon data of the experiences of 38 women managers about gendered practices they have experienced and perceived during their careers. To get a rich and broad view of the experiences, a heterogeneous group of women was selected in constructing Nina’s story.
NINA’S BACKGROUND:
Nina is a 34-year-old professional woman working in a relatively small but rapidly internationalizing investment bank. She is married to Eric, who is working as an environmental manager in a large international industrial company. Nina and Eric do not have children together, but they are both remarried and Eric has a 5-year old daughter, Laura, from his previous marriage. Laura spends alternate weeks living with her mother and with Nina and Eric.
Nina was first married in her early twenties to her high school sweetheart, but after a couple of years it came apparent that Nina’s husband expected her to become a traditional housewife. Nina’s first husband’s mother was at home during his childhood, so he possessed a very strong perception that his wife should be at home taking care of the household. This actually depicts the attitude and personality type of her ex-husband. He also wanted to have many children. However, Nina felt that she wanted to pursue her studies and career at that stage of her life, and thought that it was too early to start a family.
After some years of struggling in a marriage where Nina felt that she did not get any support from her husband for her career aspirations, it seemed the only possibility was for her to end the relationship and get divorced. A few years after the divorce she met Eric, who had totally the opposite frame of mind towards Nina’s career. Eric has been supportive of her career ever since and which motivated Nina to climb up her career. Nina says that she could not have managed to get so far in her career without Eric’s positive and encouraging attitude.
Nina comes from a middle-class family. She has two younger brothers, a father who is the managing director of a small business, and a mother who works as a secretary in the father’s company. All children in the family are well educated. The father never earned a degree himself, but is a successful “self-made man” in his business. Nina’s mother started to study at a business school, but interrupted her studies when she got pregnant. Since the children grew up she has been working in the family company. She seems to enjoy her work a lot, and Nina thinks that she is actually the real boss of the company.
CASES IN ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS
The company where Nina works has 50 employees in the home country and subsidiaries in an Asian country. The company enjoyed different cultures managed ethically, within the premises. The company was founded 15 years ago, and it has been successful during both economic recession and recovery. The geographical strategy of the company is to enlarge the business in the international market. Nina graduated with excellent grades from a business school seven years ago. After that she completed another degree in engineering with a minor in the English language. Nina has always been keen on learning new things and skills, and she is active in many networks related to banking sector work. Nina began to work in the company six years ago as a temporary summer HR assistant. Later she had different secretarial jobs in the company while earning her second degree; at that time she worked in the evenings. Nina says that she has never planned her career in detail, but has always felt that she enjoys new challenges in her work life.
One of her dreams has been to work abroad for a while, but she has never done this because she needed to work hard for the degrees and finance her studies through evening work at the company. Nina did not want to rely on her parents’ financial support very much. Now that she is remarried, working abroad is still more complicated since Eric’s career ambitions and life situation need to be taken into consideration as well.
Nina is currently working as a manager in the accounting division. Having done that for two years, she has begun to think that the work no longer gives her any new challenges, and she would like to move on in her career. She is responsible for and reports directly to the managerial group of the company, and is often asked to do her reporting in the group’ s seminars, which normally take place twice a year during the weekend somewhere outside of the city where the company is located.
The members of the managerial group are all men, but on some occasions the secretary of the CEO, Maria, has joined the seminar in order to ensure that all practical arrangements function well and smoothly. Nina has been happy to join these strategic management meetings and hopes eventually to become a real member of the group. Nina has decided to take up the career advancement issue with her supervisor in the next performance appraisal and development discussion. She feels a bit insecure to speak very directly about this idea, but she knows that her competence is of a high quality and urgently needed in the growing company.
THE APPRAISAL AND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION
The appraisal and development discussion is going to take place in two weeks’ time, and Nina has decided to work on her CV. She thinks carefully through the suggestions that she wants to make about her career development plans. She even asks for Eric’s advice, who encourages and helps her. She feels a real need for new challenges at work. Earlier, she has not been keen to make very specific career plans for her future, but now she thinks that it might be time to do that. Another reason is that to her slight amazement, she has not been mentioned by her supervisor for inclusion m a leadership development program that the company recently decided to buy from an outside consultancy company.
Nina knows that the development program will take place in the near future. She remembers well having emphasized in last year’s appraisal and development discussion her eagerness to participate in leadership development and training programs. However, seven of her male colleagues have been chosen to participate in the training. Nina is surprised, because none of the men has a double degree like she does, and in fact, four of them have not even completed their engineering degrees yet. Only two of the chosen men have worked in the company as long as Nina and all of these men are younger than her.
The discussion starts a bit late, because the previous discussion (with one of Nina’s younger male colleagues) took nearly an hour and a half. The planned timetable for the discussion is one hour per person. When Nina’s time starts, her superior, Tom, apologizes and suggests taking a break, because the day has been rather exhausting. Nina obviously understands Torn’s pressures and volunteers to make a nice Cup of tea for both of them.
Tom appreciates Nina’s kind offer. When Nina returns to Tom’s room, he is busy having an ad hoc meeting with another colleague. This younger colleague, Peter, has an intensive discussion in Tom’s room about the non-success of the national sport team in the Olympics. Tom and Peter are eagerly discussing the problerns of the team. They are both keen on sports: Tom is an assistant manager for a junior league where his son plays, and both Tom and Peter play in the team of bank sector professionals as their hobby after work every second week.
Nina waits some minutes at the door until Tom says, “OK, back to business, and see you at next Thursday’s match, Peter!” Nina hands Tom the cup of tea, and they sit down. Nina still hopes to have a thorough discussion about her future career, and particularly about the development program she wants to join but was not included in. Tom apologizes for the slight delay, and starts to have a look at the papers Nina sent hirn a week before, as was the agreement. After a while, Tom says, “You have done really nicely, Nina, and 1 really appreciate that you are so committed to this company.”
Nina is happy about this compliment, and feels a bit ashamed to start questioning his decision concerning the leadership training. She decides to do it anyway, and asks Tom why she was not included. Tom appears surprised at this question, saying, “Well, on the one hand, you have to understand that our resources are limited, and, on the other hand, your excellent input is so irnportant in the accounting team that I just cannot afford to send you to this training!”
Nina feels a bit confused, because one year before she had clearly stated her willingness not only to participate in the leadership training, but also to move on into another department, even to work for a while as an expatriate in the Asian subsidiary. Tom seems even more surprised, but then very kindly asks Nina how she can think about moving abroad. Nina does not quite understand his comment, so Tom holds a long monologue about the cultural differences between the Asian country and Nina’s homeland, pointing out that for a woman to work as a manager is fine at home, but in Asia, Nina would definitely run up against difficulties with local attitudes.
The time is running, and Tom states that unfortunately he should move on, because he still has three other discussions to conduct the same afternoon. Nina is surprised, because she has used only 40 minutes of her share of the expected 60 minutes. At this point, Nina abandons her idea of discussing her membership in the managerial group, since she feels that she is supposed to leave Tom’s office. She collects the tea cups and her papers and returns to her office. Nina feels tired and disappointed, and does not have very positive feelings about her future career possibilities in the company.
MANAGERIAL GROUP MEETING
Nina is happy and excited when she is invited to attend a weekend seminar of the managerial group. The particular weekend is a little bit problematic for Nina and Eric, because Eric is also having an international environmental seminar abroad at that time, but fortunately Eric’ s mother agrees to spend the weekend taking care of Laura. Even though Nina is invited to attend the first day of the seminar only as an outside expert to report on the development of accounting, Nina feels that after all, she has a chance to become a member of the group in the future.
The seminar takes place in a holiday resort from Saturday to Sunday. Nina drives there by car to be able to return home after the Saturday session, because she has been invited to stay only for the first day of the expert presentation. The rest of the group will continue the seminar and strategies planning on Sunday, and thus will stay overnight. The seminar starts with the CEO explaining the general business situation of the company to the participants. Nina is a bit surprised that in addition to the managerial group, all of the participants chosen to attend the leadership development programme are also present.
“Well, I assume that this is part of the training, and their attendance here is a learning process; maybe it is good that they have the possibility, like myse1f to participate in this special seminar.”
Nina’s presentation goes well in her own estimation, and the CEO thanks her warmly for her accurate work for the company: “We need people like you, Nina, for our success in the future!” Nina is very pleased, and enjoys the rest of the seminar.
In the afternoon, when the seminar is approaching its end, the CEO thanks all the participants and informs them that the dinner and refreshments will be ready in two hours. During those two hours a match of a sports game is arranged. Nina thinks that it is time for the outsiders to leave now, and asks her junior colleagues if anyone wants to have a lift back to the city. The younger colleagues look at Nina with surprise and tell her that they will be staying overnight, and plan to attend the match and later the dinner. Nina is also surprised, because she is only the second person — together with the CEO ‘5 female secretary, Maria — who was not invited to stay or participate in the leisure time get-together activities.
Maria is happy to get a lift back to the city. In the car, Nina complains about the situation, and tells her that she feels excluded not only from the social happening, but also from the strategy planning of the next day. Nina asks whether Maria knew about the arrangements beforehand. She looks at Nina and says, “Of course! And think about the situation. You don’t know how to play the sports game, so you’re staying there would only have made you look ridiculous!”
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. Explain the concept of Five-Factor Model personality theory with reference to five characters in this case.
2. Brief different types of emotions that Nina has undergone in different stages of her life.
3. Compare and contrast the leadership qualities of Tom and CEO.
4. Illustrate and reflect the developments of Nina into Maslow’s pyramid and justify your reasons.
5. What is Prejudice? Explain the stereotype perception of Tom with gender discrimination over Nina.
6. Explain the strength and weakness of Nina with respect to the attitudinal concept.
7. What kind of ethical problems do you perceive, when an employee register their grievances, inside the organisation?
8. Explicate how cultural changes can impact people’s careers? Why?
Transient memory is the memory for a boost that goes on for a brief time (Carlson, 2001). In reasonable terms visual transient memory is frequently utilized for a relative reason when one can’t thoroughly search in two spots immediately however wish to look at least two prospects. Tuholski and partners allude to momentary memory similar to the attendant handling and stockpiling of data (Tuholski, Engle, and Baylis, 2001).
They additionally feature the way that mental capacity can frequently be antagonistically impacted by working memory limit. It means quite a bit to be sure about the typical limit of momentary memory as, without a legitimate comprehension of the flawless cerebrum’s working it is challenging to evaluate whether an individual has a shortage in capacity (Parkin, 1996).
This survey frames George Miller’s verifiable perspective on transient memory limit and how it tends to be impacted, prior to bringing the examination state-of-the-art and outlining a determination of approaches to estimating momentary memory limit. The verifiable perspective on momentary memory limit
Length of outright judgment
The range of outright judgment is characterized as the breaking point to the precision with which one can distinguish the greatness of a unidimensional boost variable (Miller, 1956), with this cutoff or length generally being around 7 + 2. Mill operator refers to Hayes memory length try as proof for his restricting range. In this members needed to review data read resoundingly to them and results obviously showed that there was a typical maximum restriction of 9 when double things were utilized.
This was regardless of the consistent data speculation, which has proposed that the range ought to be long if each introduced thing contained little data (Miller, 1956). The end from Hayes and Pollack’s tests (see figure 1) was that how much data sent expansions in a straight design alongside how much data per unit input (Miller, 1956). Figure 1. Estimations of memory for data wellsprings of various sorts and bit remainders, contrasted with anticipated results for steady data. Results from Hayes (left) and Pollack (right) refered to by (Miller, 1956)
Pieces and lumps
Mill operator alludes to a ‘digit’ of data as need might have arisen ‘to settle on a choice between two similarly probable other options’. In this manner a basic either or choice requires the slightest bit of data; with more expected for additional complicated choices, along a twofold pathway (Miller, 1956). Decimal digits are worth 3.3 pieces each, implying that a 7-digit telephone number (what is handily recollected) would include 23 pieces of data. Anyway an evident inconsistency to this is the way that, assuming an English word is worth around 10 pieces and just 23 pieces could be recollected then just 2-3 words could be recalled at any one time, clearly mistaken. The restricting range can all the more likely be figured out concerning the absorption of pieces into lumps.