Analysis for Case
Jensen Shoes: Lyndon Brooks’ Story

Are self-evaluations being hurt?

Yes. This case gives us indications that Lyndon had negative core self-evaluations which are explained below:
a. Self-esteem: Although not happy with this first assignment he decided to take it up so that it helped him broaden his background and move up in job roles by showing credibility. But he could not complete all his assignments in time. He was later told by Chuck that he would be moved to Strategic Product Marketing and would be reporting to Jane Kravitz as part of reorganizing. Lyndon took this change as the effect of his under-performance and had a feeling of being demoted. This looked like it hit his self-esteem as it gave him feeling of failing in his work and now he had to report to Jane while he himself was in line management before.

b. Self-efficacy: In his first project he did believe in his capabilities to take on the project, but when he could not complete it, his work was not well appreciated by Chuck and was also moved to another project. This demotivated him and let him down. He thought he had failed. When he was again assigned the same market in his 2nd project he thought he will fail again in this project and his lack of knowledge of this market will add into the issue. He now did not have confidence in his capabilities and wanted to remain in his comfort zone of line management.

c. Locus of control: He seems to display external locus of control as he believed the kind of work and targets given to him by Chuck and Jane were not realistic and lied outside his knowledge area which is not going his way and now does not know who to trust. He kind of felt helpless.
This negatively impacted his overall performance in the company. He wasn’t confident enough of taking up and successfully completing the new assignment for the same target region of African American market. He kept refraining himself from beginning the work and pursued negotiating with Jane on reducing work or extending deadline. Further, he felt powerless around Jane and Chuck as he felt the performance feedback and assignments he received did not help him reaching his goals and could not do much about it apart from looking out options outside the company.

Are attribution errors present?

a. Fundamental Attribution Error: When Jane bluntly asks Lyndon about completing the strategic objectives before deadlines, it is then that Lyndon realizes that Jane might have been under more pressure than he expected.
Her bluntness comes as a revelation to Lyndon which shows that Lyndon underestimated the kind of pressure Jane was under from her bosses and saw her reluctance to everything he suggested as an outcome of her personal unwillingness.
If not for this fundamental attribution error, Lyndon would have started working on the project and then with some part of project completed, would have asked Jane for deadline extension so then even Jane would have had something to report to her bosses.

b. Self-Serving Bias: Lyndon listed budget cuts, inexperienced staff and rigid management for the failure in achieving strategic objectives while working for special promotions. On the other hand, when he somewhat succeeds in environmental project, there is not even the slightest mention by him of any other co-worker or help from management. He mentions Jane’s helping gesture but at the same time doesn’t forget to mention of her resources as of no importance. He acknowledges his work and use of his own resources while working on the project.
If Lyndon would have acknowledged and identified his shortcomings while working on the special promotions project instead of blaming the external factors, he would have surely felt more confident about working on his next project which covered the same demographics.

c. Hindsight Bias: Before even starting the project, Lyndon identified budget cuts and inexperienced staff as the reasons that could steer special promotions project into the troubled waters. His reluctance to work in African American and Latino markets along with his inexperience can be cited as the main reasons which translated into pre-existing doubts about the project which ultimately lead to him failing to meet the strategic objectives.
If Lyndon would have been confident about the success of special promotions project then he would have worked hard in accordance with the goal of making the project successful and thus would have made the optimum use of the resources available.

Are perceptual distortions playing a role?

Yes. These are explained as follows:
a. Selective perception: Based on what Lyndon had heard about Jensen Shoes being committed towards employee development and building diverse work force, he joined the company thinking he’d rise to top rungs and do a job in his area of interest. However, his interests were least taken care of and was assigned projects and role in which he had no past experience and interest. He ultimately thought of looking out for options.
b. Self-fulfilling prophecy: When Lyndon raised his concerns in first project, Chuck did not give any attention to it. Later, when Chuck told him he as he did not complete his S.O.’s, he needed to understand their products and also had issues with handling staff, he felt that he had been failed. To add to it he felt he was demoted when assigned to new project. This negatively impacted his self-efficacy. When assigned new project of two S.O.’s he kept delaying the start as he was low on confidence and ultimately ended up not doing the African American market S.O.
c. Halo effect: Jane had had a good track record over the years. This prompted Lyndon to assume her to be a reasonable and a decent person and thus he believed she would understand his aspirations and issues unlike Chuck and will thus help him out in improving his current situation.
If Lyndon would have tried to know more about Jane through co-workers and other acquaintances, he would have steered their discussions accordingly.