Case Analysis

FAS Group: AP2

Article: Jensen Shoes: Lyndon Brooks Story

Authors: Mary C Gentile & Pamela J Maus

Submitted to: Prof Roopak Kumar Gupta

Submitted on: 06/11/2017

Section: 8

Year: PGP1

Team Members:

HARSH MAHESHWARI 17F812

MRIDULA 17F819

RAJAN SHARMA 17F831

SWATI CHORARIA 17F845

TUSHAR PABBI 17F846

 JENSEN SHOES: LYNDON BROOKS STORY

Case Summary

Jensen Shoes, a trendsetter and leading marketer in the US for high-quality athletic and casual footwear
for children and adults, was established in 1953 by Kenneth Jensen. Jensen believed that, "At Jensen
Shoes, we value our employees as much as our products."

Over the years, the company was plagued with issues pertaining to sensitivity to employees. This case
delves into one such instance where two frames of reference are presented for an event. In the first
case, the frame of reference is perceived by Strategic Product Manager, Jane Kravitz, and the other case
is presented by one of her staff, Lyndon Brooks, and how those events led to a conflict between the two
are furnished.

Case context: Prior to 2004, the management identified that the company had been experiencing steady
growth in the sale of athletic and children's shoes over the previous decade but was lagging behind in
sales of casual wear. The flat sales growth in casual wear necessitated the need for the company to
diversify product lines and strengthen long-term industry viability. Thus, in January 2004, the company's
executive management asked Sally Briggs, VP of Marketing, to define opportunities for new markets and
new products. Briggs, in turn, assigned Chuck Taylor, Director of Strategic Marketing, to develop a major
marketing strategy within the span of 6 months and report the same in time for the annual board of
director's meeting. To develop the plan, Taylor had assigned the responsibility to three Strategic Product
Managers. Kyle Hudson for athletic shoes, Robert Murphy for children's shoes and finally Jane Kravitz
who handled the marketing plan for several vertical markets in casual wear such as African American,
Latino, Mature, College, Preteens, Men and Women. Kravitz had three staff, in turn, Lyndon Brooks who
was assigned to Latino and African American markets, Larry Bunton for College and Men's markets and
Cheryl Abbott for Preteen and Women's markets.

Fearing his career advancement opportunities were being limited, Brooks, approached his mentor and
VP of Operations Mitch Lawson for a confidential career discussion to discuss his problems.

Objectives

1. Assumptions and bases of assumptions about Jane Kravitzs abilities, attitudes and motivations
2. Recommendations for Brooks
3. Strengths and weakness of Brooks
4. Perceptual Distortions

Analysis

Brooks assumption about Kravitzs abilities:

(Initial Assumptions)

1. Janes seemed to have an appreciable management style:

 Before the first staff meeting with Jane, Brooks felt that she seemed like a decent person with a
good track record and after the meeting, Jane laid out the timeline for the proposal and
delegated the individual strategic objectives.
(Later Assumptions)
2. Jane seemed as a micro-manager:
Instead of batting for Brooks with Chuck as Brooks had expected her to, she sent him a memo
requesting for the detailed proposal including goal statement, resources, contacts, timeline.
Also, she asked for a periodic update on the progress.

Brooks assumption about Kravitzs attitude:

(Initial Assumptions)

1. Jane seemed reasonable and decent person to work with:

Brooks liked her and during the one-on-one meeting, Brook was given an opportunity to
raise his concerns to Jane and moreover, she empathized with him and even offered to help
him find a new job.
2. Jane seemed supportive:
Brooks appreciated Kravitz' s support after she gave him some information about how the
company was already using recycled materials in shoes and she also shared contacts and
ideas about how to get going when Brooks shared to her his liking to work in an
environmental project.
3. Jane's helping mentality:
Though Brooks thought of Jane as an ally and someone he could count on, he was
somewhat uncomfortable that she seemed so eager to help him find a new job. Regardless
of this feeling, he figured that Jane did this to motivate him and he did feel motivated and
encouraged to complete his Strategic Objectives on schedule and to get back on track
toward the career he intended to.
4. Jane's over appreciative attitude:
After Kravitz wrote a memo to Chuck, Brook's peers, Briggs and the EVP for a good job done
in the environmental research assigned to Brooks by EVP, Brooks believed that Kravitz was
going a little overboard recognizing him.

(Later Assumptions)

5. Jane seemed to show an unpredictable behaviour:

Initially, Kravitz seemed so helping and supportive but when Brooks went to her regarding
some hands-on research he wanted to do by attending a trade show in San Diego, Jane
seemed uncharacteristically curt to Brooks and she even referred the trip as a lark. With this
Brooks found Kravitz behaviour to him difficult to predict.
6. Jane seemed to be unreasonable:
 It seemed unreasonable to Brooks when Kravitz rant about his San Diego trip though
everyone in office built comp time into a business trip. Besides this the fact that it wouldn't
have cost any extra lodging expense to the company made the repeated ranting more
unreasonable to him.
7. Jane seemed to be distrustful of Brooks:
It seemed to Brooks that Kravitz distrusted him and questioned his integrity after he
received a "contract" from her outlining the terms of the agreement that the two had
regarding splitting the work of strategic objectives of Latino and African American markets.
8. Jane seemed to show an aggressive attitude:
Brooks felt that Jane seemed a bit aggressive in her approach when she dragged out his past
performance reviews and then told him about finding it hard for her to find a new job for
him in the company. He felt the same before too when she sent him a contract after
negotiating on S.O.'s .

Brooks assumption about Kravitzs motivation:

Motivation is directly proportional to the performance given the right environment and the
ability and therefore if an employee is not motivated then performance will suffer
(P=M+A+E).

1. Fear of failure:
Jane had confided in Brooks that Chuck was breathing down her neck and thus this
pressure and fear of failure was a motivation for her to show him that she could handle
situations thrown at her.
2. To prove her worth as a supervisor:
She had mentioned to Brooks that Chuck was insisting to get things done. She was
driven to prove her worth as a supervisor to Chuck.

Weaknesses of Lyndon Brooks

Lack of communication
Did not stand up for himself
Did not tell about EVP assignment
Did not ask enough questions initially
Did not fully understand situation
Did not follow up after being reassigned
Conflict of interest
Lack of motivation
Failure to fully understand what is going on
Wanted to succeed, but uncertain how
Strengths of Lyndon Brooks
Highly accomplished in academics
8 years of experience in consumer buying habits
Calm and composed in stressful situations
 Leadership abilities in dealing with inexperienced staff
Committed to work
Modest about his accomplishments
Considerate about company expenses

Recommendations for a more effective working relationship between Brooks and Kravitz

1. Open communication:
Brooks and Kravitz should have been more open in communicating with each other and
effectively expressing without hurting the other person. Brooks on his part should not have
expressed his displeasure so openly about joining Kravitzs team. On Kravitzs part, it was
possible that Brooks had been facing some personal problem and she should have given it a
thought. She also felt there were some negative aspects of companys open-door policy and
Brooks was becoming little too comfortable with some of them. In such a case, she should
have suggested policy changes to the management.

2. Proper Feedback and recognition:

No employee wants to exist in a vacuum. Instead of monitoring Brooks and giving him small
tokens, Kravitz should have urged Chuck, Director of Strategic marketing, to recognize and
appreciate Brooks work on environmental projects. He needed to be motivated for his
effort and criticized when required.
3. Proper allocation of tasks:
Before assigning Brooks his S.O.s, Kravitz could have consulted him on whether he is
comfortable with African American markets as he lacked experience in those markets.
People work best when they know what is expected of them and for this to happen, all
inputs should have been given to Brooks for him to successfully deliver the assignment.
4. Faith and confidence in each others ability:
Kravitz should have shown her trust in Brooks skill and abilities and she could have shown
more interest in his professional growth. Brooks on his part needed to come out of his
disappointment with the earlier project and should have focussed on the task at hand. He
should have taken the S.O.s assigned to him by Kravitz as a new initiative. Instead of using
lack of experience of African American market as an excuse he should have taken it as a
challenge to work in an unexplored territory.

Based on the observed behaviour of Brooks, we strongly recommend he should be provided

with a training on teamwork. As for Jane Kravitz and Chuck Taylor, they seemed to be
lacking effective managerial and leadership skills. If their subordinates are demotivated and
lacking in their work, then they need encouragement and motivation. We recommend
training in Managerial and Leadership skills for Chuck and Kravitz.

Perceptual biases in the case

1. Self-fulfilling prophecies:
Chuck Taylor had provided a negative assessment on Brooks performance in his last three
years in the company to Jane Kravitz. Jane had earlier worked with Brooks and knew that he
was a professional and can perform exceptionally if given the right situation and motivation
but Chucks negative comments influenced Janes outlook about Brooks and as a result, she
did not think too highly of Brooks in terms of deliverables. She was constantly monitoring
his work.

2. Stereotypes:

Brooks might have felt that he was being stereotyped by Jane. He was assigned African
American markets as part of his strategic performance objectives which were also a part of
his previous assignment. He lacked experience in those markets and was not able to
complete the assignment successfully. Clearly, he was not happy when he was assigned
those markets again. And he started believing that he is not considered an important clog in
his organisation. Janes constant micromanagement would have further enhanced his view
that he was not considered capable enough. Jane on her part wanted best for Brooks but
she herself was unsure how to align his deliveries with his performance. As per the case, she
asked Ron Johnson, Director of Distribution to consider Brooks for an opening in his team.
But Ron reminded her that Brooks background is marketing. When she told Brooks that it
was hard to find a new job for him, he did not take it too well. Brooks started assuming that
he was being stereotyped and as a result, he was not able to give his hundred percent to the
organisation.

3. Golem Effect

Kravitz, during the division of work among her three staff members, performed a perceptual
error known as the golem effect. When she divided the work, not only did she give Brooks
the two S.O.s like everyone else, she also gave him the special environmental consumer
buying trends project. Prior to giving him the extra project, Kravitz was told by Chuck that
Brooks was given poor performance reviews. Unconsciously, she set Brooks up to fail by
giving him an extra project to work on, making his workload greater than the others and
putting more pressure on him to succeed.