• Create BookmarkCreate Bookmark
  • Create Note or TagCreate Note or Tag
  • PrintPrint


1:You've joined a new organization and you've discovered that one of the people who works for you appears to be seriously overpaid for what he does. You know that he is pretty settled and happy in the organization. You also know that he's fairly reasonable. You decide to reduce his salary to that of his peers. Your analysis is that although he might be very upset about it initially, he will eventually see your point of view and the whole thing will blow over. Is this what actually happens?
  1. Yes, it's all about how settled and happy he is in the organization—that plus the fact that he's a reasonable person.

  2. He goes ballistic. He quits and you end up with a lawsuit on your hands.

  3. It's stormier than you had expected. You have to give a bit and not do as big a reduction as you had been planning. Then it passes.

  4. You sleep on it, wake up the next day, and decide this was a crazy idea. You've got plenty on your plate without bringing this on yourself. You let sleeping dogs lie.

A1: (a) 0 points

Reasonable or not, I couldn't see this happening in a month of Sundays.

(b) 5 points

He quits? Almost certainly. A lawsuit? You can depend on it. And he'd win, too. The payout would dwarf the saving you would have made by reducing his salary.

(c) 0 points

Most unlikely, I'd say. Reducing somebody's salary strikes at a fundamental core of their being.

(d) 5 points

I'd like to think this is what you chose.

2:You join an organization where your boss weilds a need-to-know policy. He will tell you the minimum you need to know to get the job done. Your style is very much the opposite. Your approach is to tell everybody the big picture and their part in it. You consider converting your boss to your approach as one of your big crusades, but you're not sure how important it is, given all the other things you have on your plate. How important is it?
  1. High priority.

  2. Medium priority.

  3. Low priority.

  4. Irrelevant (i.e., no priority) in the sense that it's just the way things are and you'll have to work within these parameters.

A2: (a) 5 points

In my view, absolutely. Not dealing with this essentially commits the organization to an active policy of ignoring how people feel about things.

(b) 1 point

Your heart's in the right place.

(c) 0 points

See (a).

(d) 0 points

See (a).

3:Of the following, which is the worst crime?
  1. Telling bad news to the higher ups.

  2. Telling good news to the higher ups.

  3. Telling no news to the higher ups.

  4. Giving the higher ups (bad) surprises.

A3: (a) 5 points

This is not a crime (although, in many organizations it is treated as such). Ultimately, people don't expect miracles (although again, I realize you might be saying that in your organization, they do). What people really want is that good, bad, or indifferent, they know how they stand. In this context, telling bad news is the right thing to do.

(b) 4 points

Provided it's the truth, this is not a crime. I've docked a point—unfairly, you might cry—to remind you of this painful fact.

(c) 4 points

Provided there's nothing to report, this is not a crime. If there is and you're hiding it or sitting on it, then you're being very naughty indeed. I've docked a point as a reminder, as before.

(d) 5 points

This is a crime.



Not a subscriber?

Start A Free Trial

  • Creative Edge
  • Create BookmarkCreate Bookmark
  • Create Note or TagCreate Note or Tag
  • PrintPrint