Strategy Implementation

 

Papers should take the form of an executive brief/memo and demonstrate effective executive writing.
Deliverables will focus on answering either the question “What should “the protagonist” do?” or evaluating the
performance of the executives in question. They will take the form of a short executive briefing, incorporating:
1) Executive Summary, a brief overview of the paper, including a descriiption of the situation/problem, main
recommendation (Act-Now/Prepare-to-Act/Monitor/Park) and key supporting recommended action(s), and,
2) Supporting Narrative summarizing background information, concise analysis, available options, decision criteria
(pros/sons), recommended action(s) and summary/conclusions.
The objective is to move beyond contextual/situational analysis, framing issues, and root cause to evaluate options and
recommend specific actions. Recommendations must be specific and both action-oriented and actionable. Timing for recommended actions is specific to
each case but will generally achieve results over one of three horizons: short-term, mid-term, and long-term.
Group Paper #1 – Sonoco – “What should Peter Browning do?”
Be Peter Browning — size up the situation at Sonoco, evaluate his options, and define a specific action plan.
o Papers can be up to 4 pages in length, including supporting exhibits (if any).
o See the Assignment on Blackboard for detailed instruction and the grading rubric.
The paper should be written from a strategy implementation standpoint from the attached lecture materials and “Sonoco” pdf I provided. I will be further
attaching more lecture material which you can draw analysis from. There is a missing PowerPoint deck that is missing which will be needed before being
able to start the report. I will send it separately when I receive the deck from the professor.
Incorporating a Functional Analysis, Eisenhower Matrix and
Action Priority Matrix into an Appendix would further enhance the quality of the strategy

Sample Solution

when predicting attitude stability and the corresponding behavior and judgments of those behaviors. Moreover, Gantman and Van Bavel (2014) found evidence for a moral pop-out effect, such that participants were more likely to recognize moral words over nonmoral words in a lexical decision task.

With regard to group evaluations, it has been shown that moral judgments of one’s ingroup are more important than judgments of competence or sociability (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007). Perceiving one’s ingroup as moral has been shown to lead to more positive outcomes of a group’s self-concept, such that positive moral evaluations of one’s ingroup leads to less distancing from that group and greater group identification (Leach et al., 2007). This line of research further extends to the evaluation of outgroups, with the main finding that moral traits are weighted more heavily when members of one group form impressions about an outgroup (Brambilla et al., 2013a). A limitation of this line of research is its focus on conscious, controlled perceptions of morality. Unconscious perception enjoys an extensive influence on social behavior (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), and as such studying morality at the unconscious level may reveal interesting differences in explicit versus implicit evaluations of outgroups.

While previous research has provided a solid foundation for understanding just how important moral judgments are to individuals, more work needs to be done to fully examine how quickly moral judgments are made. Limited work has studied the role of implicit cognition in moral judgments, though there is reason to believe that moral judgments may be susceptible to nonconscious influences (e.g., Ma, Vandekerckhove, Baetens, Van Overwalle, Seurinck, & Fias, 2012; Willis & Todorov, 2006). Given that judgments of morality are deemed to be more relevant than other traits when judging whether a target represents a threat (Brambilla et al., 2013b; Willis & Todorov, 2006), we contend that research into the implicit attribution of moral personality traits is warranted to delineate whether morality is attributed automatically or through cognitive processes. This led to our first hypothesis, which predicts that participants will be more likely to recognize moral (versus nonmoral) traits

Spontaneous Trait Inferences

A spontaneous trait inference (STI) occurs when an individual makes a nonconscious, unintentional judgment about the character of another individual (Winter & Uleman, 1984). These inferences occur

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.