Leadership and Justin
Week 5 Mini Case
1. What might explain Justin’s Failure to perform well in his new leadership role as the head of the Asia-Pacific division?
I feel that there could have been a few things that led to Justin’s failure in his new leadership position. While although he was extremely successful during his domestic VP position, many leaders fail to grasp the key traits and skills needed for the global scale. I think more emersion into the Hong Kong culture could have possibility helped Justin adapt and relate better with the local employees of the company. With being culturally aware Justin also needed to be adaptable in his new position. Being resourceful and not just implementing new rules and policies isn’t exercising an adaptable approach to the new job. The most import aspect I think Justin missed the boat on was looking to the future of the business but in the aspect of his new environment. Had he made this his number one priority, I feel the other traits and skills needed for this new position would have followed.
2. What might Compcorp have done to enhance prospects for Justin’s successful performance? What might Justin himself have done to enhance the likelihood of success in this new assignment and to help avoid derailing an otherwise highly promising career in Compcorp? Compcorp could have enhanced Justin’s performance by following one of two models to shape effective global leaders. The first is the GLED Model (Global Leadership Expertise Development) which focuses on four categories: individual characteristics, cultural exposure, global education, and project novelty (Ball, p.286). The second is The “Right Stuff” Model which identifies global leaders in what they have learned and what they are able to do as leaders (Ball, p.286). Had Compcorp alerted extra attention to Justin Marshall under either one of these models instead of just going of past performance his outcome would have had a better result. Compcorp isn’t the only one at fault; Justin is
1. What might explain Justin’s Failure to perform well in his new leadership role as the head of the Asia-Pacific division?
I feel that there could have been a few things that led to Justin’s failure in his new leadership position. While although he was extremely successful during his domestic VP position, many leaders fail to grasp the key traits and skills needed for the global scale. I think more emersion into the Hong Kong culture could have possibility helped Justin adapt and relate better with the local employees of the company. With being culturally aware Justin also needed to be adaptable in his new position. Being resourceful and not just implementing new rules and policies isn’t exercising an adaptable approach to the new job. The most import aspect I think Justin missed the boat on was looking to the future of the business but in the aspect of his new environment. Had he made this his number one priority, I feel the other traits and skills needed for this new position would have followed.
2. What might Compcorp have done to enhance prospects for Justin’s successful performance? What might Justin himself have done to enhance the likelihood of success in this new assignment and to help avoid derailing an otherwise highly promising career in Compcorp? Compcorp could have enhanced Justin’s performance by following one of two models to shape effective global leaders. The first is the GLED Model (Global Leadership Expertise Development) which focuses on four categories: individual characteristics, cultural exposure, global education, and project novelty (Ball, p.286). The second is The “Right Stuff” Model which identifies global leaders in what they have learned and what they are able to do as leaders (Ball, p.286). Had Compcorp alerted extra attention to Justin Marshall under either one of these models instead of just going of past performance his outcome would have had a better result. Compcorp isn’t the only one at fault; Justin is