Ace Institute of Management Fall 2012 MBAe Term IV A

Organizational Behavior and Leadership

Assignment No. 2

Submitted To:
Mr. Madan Lal Pradhan

Submitted By:
Pramesh Vaidya 8th October, 2012

Sneaky Snakes
1. In the first round why did you choose the snake you did? Did you think it would be very easy? Very difficult? Generally do you accept tasks and set goals which are very easy? Very difficult? Or do you take moderate risks? In the first round I chose the Snake 1. I thought that this was an easy snake and a safe bet to trace from its tail to head and possible to complete in the given time frame. Also, by completing this snake, I would get experience of tracing the snake and next time I could choose a more complex one. Generally I take moderate risks, neither very easy, nor very high. It is because while undertaking moderate risks, I can perform the tasks efficiently without feeling pressurized. There is space to show my capability and at the same time task accomplishment rate is high compared to goals with high risk. Then, I can move towards tasks and goals with high risks confidently from the experience.

2. In the second round why did you choose the snake you did? Did you try to choose a snake which was a more realistic challenge: neither easy nor very difficult? In the second round I chose Snake 2 adjacent to the first snake. From the experience of tracing the first snake, I was better equipped to take a more challenging snake. This snake was a little bit harder than the first. I also wanted to be realistic on completing the challenge. I wanted to increase the complexity gradually rather than taking a significant leap.

3. Did your success or failure in the first or second round influence your second choice? How? Yes to some extent, my success in the first round influenced by second choice as I was encouraged to choose a slightly harder snake. Since, I chose the easiest snake in my first round, it was obligatory for me to choose the second one as I wanted to increase the complexity gradually.

People program themselves to success or failure by enacting their self efficacy beliefs. Do you agree with this statement? Discuss. I agree with the statement that people program themselves to success or failure by enacting their self efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy is a persons belief about his or her chances of successfully accomplishing a specific task. Self efficacy arises from the gradual acquisition of complex cognitive, social, linguistic, and/or physical skills through experience. To support the statement I would discuss about 2 different individuals namely, Lance Armstrong and Randy Pausch who became successful due to their self-efficacy beliefs. I would also share my own experience. Lance Armstrong is an American former professional road racing cyclist. He won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times after surviving testicular cancer. In October 1996, he was diagnosed as having testicular cancer with a tumor that had metastasized to his brain and lungs; his prognosis was initially poor. His cancer treatments included brain and testicular surgery and extensive chemotherapy. After his surgery, his doctor stated that he had less than a 40% survival chance. His cancer went into complete remission, and by January 1998 he was already engaged in serious training for racing, moving to Europe to race for the U.S. Postal team. A pivotal week (April 1998) in his comeback was one he spent training in the very challenging Appalachian terrain around Boone, North Carolina, with his racing friend Bob Roll. He returned to cycling and won the Tour de France each year from 1999 to 2005. That is the power of self-efficacy. Another example is of Randy Pausch was an American professor of computer science and humancomputer interaction and design at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He died of complications from pancreatic cancer on July 25, 2008. Pausch learned that he had pancreatic cancer in September 2006, and in August 2007 he was given a terminal diagnosis: "3 to 6 months of good health left". He gave an upbeat lecture titled "The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" on September 18, 2007, at Carnegie Mellon, which became a popular YouTube video and led to other media appearances. He gave an upbeat lecture titled "The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" on September 18, 2007, at Carnegie Mellon, which became a popular YouTube video and led to other media appearances. He then co-authored a book called The Last Lecture on the same theme, which became a New York Times best-seller. After reading his book, I learnt that before he died he wanted his children to know their father when they grew old. So, despite his terminal illness he worked hard to prepare and give the lecture. A final example that I would like to give is from my own experience. Back in 2009-10, when I was applying for my Masters degree in US and Canada, I knew that although GRE scores were important, that was not my forte. I did not score high. Many people thought that I should re-take the test if I needed financial aid. But I believed in my capability to get admission in good colleges. So, I started to correspond with professors of my field of interest. I followed their research papers and emailed them by writing how I could extend their research with my ideas. I kept studying and writing to different professors. Finally I got positive replies from some professors. A couple of them offered me admission with sufficient financial aid. Therefore, I strongly believe that we can program to succeed by enacting self-efficacy beliefs.

Self-Monitoring Assessment

1. Does your score surprise you in any way? I scored 2 points in the self monitoring assessment. Yes, it surprised me as I never thought I would score so low. I took the test for the first time and scored just 1 for statement 3. Surprised by my low score, I re-took the test, but couldnt score more than 2.

2. Are you unhappy with the way you present yourself to others? Explain No, Im not unhappy with the way I present myself to others. I am quite satisfied about the way I feel confident when talking to others. However, I need to be better organized in my presentation. I want to be more confident and clear in my thought processes.

3. What are the ethical implications of your score (particularly with regard to items 9 and 10)? As per the scores with regards to items 9 and 10, there are no wrong ethical implications. As of now, I cannot tell a lie with a straight face or deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them. But in the future if I am able to do these things and become aware, I will not consider it to be ethically wrong. Rather in this competitive business world, people should understand that being high self monitored is rewarding and necessary.

4. What are the career implications of your self-monitoring score in the OB exercise? From the self-monitoring score in the OB exercise I fall into the Low self monitoring category. Low self-monitors often are criticized for being on their own planet and insensitive to others. Low-self monitors can bend without breaking, so they should try to be a bit more accommodating while being true to their basic beliefs. They should practice reading and adjusting to non-verbal cues in various public situations. Individuals low in self-monitoring are thought to lack either the ability or the motivation to so regulate their expressive self-presentations. Instead, their expressive behaviors are thought to functionally reflect their own enduring and momentary inner states, including their attitudes, traits, and feelings. Individuals high in self-monitoring are thought to regulate their expressive self-presentation for the sake of desired public appearances, and thus are highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues of situational appropriate performances. In a research, among 139 MBA graduates who were tracked for five years, high self-monitors enjoyed more internal and external promotions than did their low self-monitoring classmates. Another study of 147 managers and professionals found that high self-monitors had a better record of acquiring a mentor (someone to act as a personal career coach and professional sponsor). These results mesh well with an

earlier study that found managerial success (in terms of speed of promotions) was tied to political savvy (knowing how to socialize, network, and engage in organizational politics).