Draft 10/31/12

MLD-101b: Strategy, Structure, & Leadership

Fall Semester 2012

Tues/Th 10:10-11:30am in Littauer 130

Faculty: Hannah Riley Bowles

Email/Tel: / (617) 496-4717

Office: Taubman 160, Center for Public Leadership

Office hours: Th 1:15-3:15pm

Faculty Assistant: Marsha Frazier

Email/Tel/Office: / (617) 496-9669 / L105

Course Assistants: Ashley Bittner Sushma Raman

Email:

COURSE DESCRIPTION

MLD-101 has been designed to equip MPP students with analytic techniques public and non-profit managers and leaders can use to increase the value their organizations create. We do not assume that all students will necessarily become leaders and managers of public or non-profit organizations. We understand that there are many other platforms from which one can exercise leadership in public life—including the positions of policy analyst, political advocate, or elected representative of the people. All of these roles, however, benefit from a sophisticated understanding of management, leadership, and decision making.

MLD-101b has been designed this semester to test some new material for our core course in Management, Leadership, and Decision Making. It covers a lot of the same substantive material as MLD-101c and MLD-101d, but not always using the same pedagogical strategy. As you have been informed, MLD-101a is especially designed as an alternative version for students interested in pursuing careers in the nonprofit sector.

The objectives of MLD-101b are to help you:

1.  Expand your repertoire of motivational strategies to increase group performance and lead change

2.  Enhance the efficiency and productivity of your team work

3.  Sharpen your analysis of and potential to leverage personal and organizational networks

4.  Improve your strategic thinking, particularly, in terms of how to align organizational mission, strategy, culture, and performance management

5.  Become a more sophisticated analyst of leadership situations

Overview of Class Schedule

DATE / TOPIC / SUBTOPIC / CLASS SESSION
Th Sept 6 / Introduction / Leadership & Power / New Proposal New Initiative (exercise)
Tu Sept 11 / Motivating / Negotiation Analysis / Negotiating Change (video)
Th Sept 13 / People / Salt Harbor (negotiation simulation)
Tu Sept 18 / Cognitive Biases / Debrief IAT and JDM poll
Th Sept 20 / Stone Container (case)
Tu Sept 25 / HS Team Field Project (set-up)
Th Sept 27 / Managing Conflict / Amanda (in-class exercise)
Tu Oct 2 / Persuasion / Kidney Donation (exercise)
Th Oct 4 / Inspiration / Gandhi (video) & NAACP (case)
*Tu Oct 9 / Working in / PB Technologies (exercise)
Teams / *Assignment DUE: / HS Team Product & Debrief Survey
Th Oct 11 / HS Team Field Project (debrief)
Tu Oct 16 / Tip of the Iceberg (exercise)
Th Oct 18 / Sun Global Teams case (case)
*Tu Oct 23 / Leveraging / Whitney Young (case)
Networks / *Assignment DUE: / Network Survey
Th Oct 25 / Network Assessment (debrief)
Tu Oct 30 / Strategic / Mission & Strategy / Protecta (case)
*W Oct 31 / Management / *Assignment DUE: / Aravind Survey
Th Nov 1 / Operations / Aravind Eye Hospital (case)
Tu Nov 6 / Performance / Jump Start (case)
Th Nov 8 / Management / Guest Speaker: Margaret McKenna
Tu Nov 13 / Harlem Children's Zone (case)
Th Nov 15 / Leveraging Diversity / ActionAid International (case)
Tu Nov 20 / Leadership / Crisis / Giuliani & Sept 11th (case)
Tu Nov 27 / Charisma / Aung San Suu Kyi (A) (case)
Th Nov 29 / Transactional & / Mandela (film)
Tu Dec 4 / Transformational / Mandela cont. (film)
Th Dec 6 / Course Wrap-Up / Proposals for Aung San Suu Kyi
*M Dec 17 / *Assignment DUE: / Final Paper

Grading and Requirements

The following table summarizes how your MLD-101b grade will be calculated. The details of specific assignments will be distributed during the semester and posted to the course page.

Component of Grade / % of Grade / Description
Overall
Class Participation / 30% / Based on your quality of preparedness for and your contributions to learning from interactive exercises, case analyses, and class discussion. Timely and consistent class attendance is a course requirement.
Tues 10/9
HS Field Project Survey / 20% / Based on your constructive participation in the field exercise and your own timely, thorough, and thoughtful completion of the debriefing survey from the exercise.
Tues 10/23
Network Survey / 10% / Based on your timely, thorough, and thoughtful completion of the Network Assessment Survey.
Wed 10/31
Aravind Survey / 10% / Based on your timely, thorough, and thoughtful completion of the Aravind Worksheet and Survey.
Mon 12/17
Final Paper applying course concepts to address a real leadership, management, or policy issue / 30% / This assignment will take the form of a proposal for applying course concepts to a real policy, management, or leadership problem. Proposals will be graded based on the quality and potential usefulness of the proposal. Quality will be weighted more heavily than usefulness. “Quality” refers to the analytic coherence of the proposal and its demonstration of command of course concepts (e.g., application of theory and analytic frameworks). “Usefulness” will be reflected in the practicality of the proposal and its evident fit with the target context of application.
Submit by noon on Mon 12/17 in hard copy to Marsha Frazier and via email to
NOTE: See last page of syllabus for more details.


Class Schedule

Introduction
Leadership & Power
Th 9/6 / Class Description
During this class session, we will conduct and debrief two interactive exercises, The New Proposal and The New Initiative.
Advance Preparation
Required Background Reading
*Excerpts from Burns, J. M. 1979. "The Power of Leadership," In Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. Pages 12-23.
*Excerpts from Lax, D. A. and Sebenius, J. K. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: Free Press on “Power in Bargaining” (pp. 249-257).
*Reading linked to course page:
https://coursepages.knet.hks.harvard.edu/sites/7599/Lists/Course%20Materials/Materials%20by%20Class%20Date.aspx
Optional Reading
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068-1074.
http://ezp1.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2006-22904-011&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Assignment Notes
During this opening class session we are going to conduct two interactive exercises. There is no advance preparation for the exercises.
Please read the selection from Burns on power and leadership, focus on the sections in which he defines power and contrasts transactional and transformational leadership. We will build on some of the basic concepts from this reading throughout the course. Skim the reading by Lax and Sebenius on power in negotiation. We will apply basic concepts from this reading in the exercise debrief and in later class discussions.
Following are study questions to guide your reading.
1.  What is the difference between leadership and power?
2.  From where does one derive the power to lead?
Motivating People
Negotiation
Analysis
Tu 9/11 / Class Description
During this class session, we will collectively analyze a stop-action video case, called Negotiating Corporate Change.
Advance Preparation
Required Background Reading (see CMO Packet #1)
Sebenius, J. K. 1997. Introduction to Negotiation Analysis: Creating and Claiming Value. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Sebenius, J. K. 1996. Sequencing to Build Coalitions: With Whom Should I Talk First? (pp. 324-348). In R. J. Zeckhauser, R. L. Keeney, J. K. Sebenius, 1996. Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Assignment Notes
There is no advance preparation required for video case discussion.
The readings by Sebenius provide an introduction to basic concepts in negotiation analysis and to theory on the sequencing of coalitions. We will apply concepts from these readings during the case analysis and in future class sessions.
Following are study questions to guide your reading.
1.  Why distinguish between parties underlying interests and their stated positions in negotiation analysis?
2.  Why is it important to analyze parties’ no-agreement alternatives?
3.  What is the value in “sequencing” the formation of coalitions?
Negotiation Analysis cont.
Th 9/13 / Class Description
During this class session, we will conduct and debrief the Salt Harbor negotiation.
Advance Preparation
Prepare Case
Confidential instructions for the Salt Harbor negotiation will be distributed in class on Tu 9/11.
Complete Online Poll (Submit poll responses before class.)
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MLD101_SurveyDueSept13
Note: We will debrief this survey on Tues 9/18, but please complete the poll before class on Thurs 9/13 because we will cover material relevant to it in the Salt Harbor debrief.
Optional Reading
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
http://content.ebscohost.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pdf23_24/pdf/ddd/pdh/amp/amp-57-9-705.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=amp-57-9-705&S=R&D=pdh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSepq840dvuOLCmr0qeprdSsqq4SLeWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuslGwqrFIuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. 2009. Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6-16.
http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=37007999&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Assignment Notes
In advance of this class session, you need to prepare for the Salt Harbor negotiation and complete the online poll assignment.
During class, we will run and debrief a 30-minute negotiation simulation called Salt Harbor. You will be assigned to one of two roles and given confidential case materials to prepare to negotiate. In your negotiations, it is entirely up to you how much of your confidential information you disclose to the person with whom you are negotiating. However, do NOT show your instruction sheet to anyone else.
You should prepare on your own for this negotiation. It is essential to your own and your classmates’ learning experience that you prepare conscientiously for this negotiation.
At the beginning of class, we will collect your responses to the following questions:
1.  What is your walk-away price? In other words, at what price would you prefer to walk-away rather than continue to negotiate?
2.  What is your best estimate of the other party’s walk-away price?
3.  What is your target price? What price would represent a good outcome for you in this negotiation?
4.  What is your first offer? If you had to put the first serious number on the table, what would it be?
Cognitive Biases
Tu 9/18 / Class Description
During this class session, we will discuss some of the cognitive biases that impede our understanding of others’ interests and motivations. For this discussion, we will draw on data from the Salt Harbor negotiation, your answers to the poll you completed before class on Th 9/13, and your experiences taking the Implicit Association Test (see below).
Advance Preparation
Complete “Gender-Career” Implicit Association Test
Go to the following website and click on “I wish to proceed”Ϯ at the bottom of the screen to take the Implicit Association Test.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html
Among the menu of test options, complete the Gender-Career IAT. You are free to complete other tests as well, but the Gender-Career IAT will give us a shared basis for discussion.
ϮNote: If for some reason you do not wish to complete the IAT, you can read the following article as an alternative to the assignment.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.
http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Gwald_McGh_Schw_JPSP_1998.OCR.pdf
Required Background Reading
Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315-1328.
http://psp.sagepub.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/content/26/11/1315.full.pdf+html
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of a decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-463.
http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/pdfplus/1685855.pdf?acceptTC=true
Dunning, D., Griffin, D. W., Milojkovic, J. D., & Ross, L. (1990). The overconfidence effect in social prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 568-581.
http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=psp-58-4-568&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 109-126.
http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9703274315&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Optional (on reserve in HKS library)
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2009). Judgment in managerial decision making. (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Assignment Notes
The Rudman and Kilianski article is a sample of research based on the IAT and a good complement to the Gender-Career IAT that you completed. The Tversky and Kahneman article is a very famous, foundational article in behavioral economics. The article by Dunning and colleagues describes overconfidence in social perception. The article by Babcock and Loewenstein explains how self-serving bias creates barriers to negotiated agreements. We will draw on insights from these articles during the class discussion.
The optional reading by Bazerman and Moore provides an extensive discussion of cognitive biases in judgment and decision making.
Following are study questions to guide your reading.
1.  What is the difference between explicit and implicit stereotypes? How can one be opposed to explicit stereotyping, yet still succumb to implicit stereotyping?
2.  What is the primary contribution of Prospect Theory to the Expected Utility Model in economic theory?
3.  How does overconfidence affect our judgments about others?
4.  Why are people prone to self-serving biases?
Cognitive Biases cont.
Th 9/20 / Class Description
During this class session, we will analyze the Stone Container in Honduras case, applying concepts from negotiation analysis and the readings on partisan perceptions and the evaluation of decisions with uncertain outcomes.
Advance Preparation
Prepare Case (see CMO Packet #1)
Stone Container in Honduras (A) (HBS Case 897-140)
Required Background Reading (*see CMO Packet #1)
*Robinson, R. J. 1997. Errors in Social Judgment: Implications for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution; Part 2: Partisan Perceptions (HBS Case 897-104)
See, K. E. (2009). Reactions to Decisions With Uncertain Consequences: Reliance on Perceived Fairness Versus Predicted Outcomes Depends on Knowledge. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96(1), 104-118.
http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=psp-96-1-104&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Optional Reading (on reserve in HKS library)