Question

Alan Smith was the senior manager of a marketing and sales team at a medical devices company. Since his team was all together at a large off-site company event for three days (something rare given their travel schedules), he had pulled them together to discuss an important hire. The team needed to choose someone for a key management role with core responsibilities, such as attracting new business and promoting overall revenue growth.
After sorting through a large pool of applicants, he and several others on the team had narrowed down the field to two well-qualified internal candidates. Smith was now meeting with this team and with his own boss present to decide which of the two to hire. Even though Smith was not the most senior person there, he was clearly the one authorized to make the decision. He had decided at the outset to be in “listening” mode so as not to potentially bias the team toward his viewpoint, but rather to let them speak freely.
The first candidate was Mita Anand, who had excellent performance metrics. She was known to be a broad thinker, very outgoing, and willing to speak her mind.
The second candidate was John Merriweather. He was also a consistently strong performer, and he had a good reputation throughout the company. Culturally, he would be an easy fit with the rest of the team as well, having a similar temperament, interests, and points of view on most matters.
For the first few minutes of the discussion, various team members spoke about their experiences with, and opinions of, one or both candidates. Because both were unambiguously strong performers on the metrics used in their current roles, the discussion was so far confirming the choice of these two as the finalists, but wasn’t moving the needle clearly in the direction of either Anand or Merriweather. Until, that is, Elliott Bowers (a team manager who would be at an equivalent level with the candidate eventually chosen) spoke up.
“I’m surprised no one has mentioned what happened last night, since I know many of you noticed it,” Bowers began. “At the party last night, Mita did that wild group karaoke on stage. I heard she stayed out all night. I just don’t think it’s appropriate for a manager in our industry—let alone a mother—to behave like that.”
“Yes, it was pretty noticeable,” agreed another team member, who then asked, “But there weren’t any clients in the room, were there?”
“No, but I just don’t know if I can really trust her decision-making if that is how she behaves,” Bowers replied.A few others nodded their head in apparent agreement, but no one picked up on Bowers’s thread directly. Instead, the next comment moved back to a question about whose specific background experiences might be more valuable in the managerial role. Although Smith didn’t ask for a straw vote to see where people were at, he sensed that the group had begun to lean toward Merriweather.
After a few more minutes of discussion where nothing particularly differentiating was said, Smith sensed the conversation had reached a point of diminishing return, and thus brought the meeting to a close. He thanked everyone for their contribution, and said he would let them know his decision soon.
Question 1 :
After reading the 'Whom should we promote case, answer the following.
A) Identify the main characters in this case, B) according to your understanding, what is / are the main issue (s)?
C) According to the information you have been provided, if you w e in Smith 's position, who would you choose and why?

Answer 1

Answer 1
The main characters in this case heart Alan Smith the senior manager, Mita Anand ,John Merriweather ,Elliott Bowers .
Mita Anand and John will the two persons who were competing for the post in the organisation. It was a promotion which was to be decided by Alan Smith
Answer 2
As per the details mentioned in the case study, the main issue is Alan Smith the senior manager of marketing and sales at a medical device company is looking for important higher in his company.He is looking for someone for the key management role whose core responsibilities would be attracting new business and promoting the overall revenue growth. After considering various application for the post he came across to internally qualified candidates, who were equally capable for this position. The first candidate who was eligible for this position was Mita Anand who was the excellent performance, she was a broad thinker, very outgoing and willing to speak her mind. Other candidate whom Alex thought was equally capable was John M he was also a strong performer and had a good reputation in the the company. Culturally he was also a easy fit with other members of the team, who were having temperament similar to him and same interest.

So now after considering both the candidates a final selection had to be made by Alan Smith .He considered opinion of various other team members and one of his team members Elliot Bowers give his opinion that Mita Anand was seen in a wild group Karaoke on stage and stayed out all Night. This behavior was in appropriate according to him and he doubted her decision making skills. This discussion was made by him had a impact on other members of the team and their decision for the position shifted towards John for the post. But the final decision was still to be made by Alan Smith.
Answer 3.
According to the information provided in the case study if I were in Smiths position ,I would have selected John for the post. This is because one of the team members Bowers made a comment that Mita lacked decision making skills. This was made in consideration to a behavior, he observed that she did a wild group Karaoke on stage and she was there all night. Such type of behavior is inappropriate for the post of a manager. This also shows that she could not be trusted with her decision making skills . she was not the best choice for this post and John should be given the promotion.
Please like this answer by giving it a big thumbs up.