Leadership Vignette Teaching Notes

Teaching Notes / 1

Leadership Vignette Teaching Notes

These vignettes were designed for use in masters-level leadership courses, specifically a course called “Leading People and Managing Relationships” taught at DuquesneUniversity. The vignettes were used as a learning assessment measure for the course objective: (students will) “utilize interpretive frameworks when exercising organizational leadership.” Secondary objectives that the vignettes supported included “demonstrate effective use of self as an instrument of change” and “integrate current theoretical and practical perspectives on leadership with their own practice of leading people and managing relationships.”

Vignettes were used as follows:

First, distribute the “Sample Vignette,” “Sample Vignette Rubric,” and “Response to Sample Vignette” (pages 3 – 6). Students do not write a response to the Sample Vignette – it is merely an example of what they are expected to do: namely, respond to a different vignette while meeting the criteria specified in the rubric.
Next, distribute “‘Leading Up’ - Vignette A” and “Rubric for Response to ‘Leading Up’ - Vignette A” (pages 7 - 9). The rubric criteria are identical to those of the “Sample Vignette Rubric” – only the heading on the page is different. Give students the assignment to write a response to the vignette, due in one week. Word count targets for response length were between 1,000 and 1,750 words (i.e., 4-7 double spaced pages).
The instructor gives students qualitative feedback on their responses. Feedback is of three types: (a) how well the student did in meeting the rubric criteria; (b) acknowledgement of and appreciation for the student’s using his or her strengths (identified by the student in the response), and (c) affirmations of the student’s choices and reasoning, and/or suggestions for other possible ways of framing the situation.
In a second round of vignettes and responses, distribute the “‘Leading Out’ - Vignette B” (vignettes B1 and B2) and the “Rubric for Response to ‘Leading Out’– Vignette B” (pages 17 – 19). Again, the rubric criteria are identical to those preceding it. Assign students to write a response to one or the other of the two ‘Leading Out’ vignettes (either B1 or B2), using the same guidelines as the previous assignment.
When students turn in their responses to the “‘Leading Out’ – Vignette B,” pair them with another student (e.g., a student who wrote the other ‘Leading Out’ vignette), and have them exchange copies of their responses. Assign them the task of giving their partner feedback of the three types that the instructor modeled in (3) above. Guidelines for doing so appear below on p. 29.

Other Notes and Possible Variations

The rubric criteria were specifically designed relative to course content. For example, because Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond® model was a primary interpretive framework students were taught in the course, each ‘corner’ of the Diamond was explicitly mentioned in the rubric. Similarly, because Now Discover Your Strengths and Political Savvy were course texts, students had to draw upon the concepts and models presented in those texts. These criteria could be replaced or modified to emphasize different leadership frameworks.
These vignettes were originally used in an online section of the course and subsequently used in a face-to-face section. The feedback on the responses and the partnering were accomplished differently in these different mediums, but use of the vignettes was essentially the same.
Sample responses to the “Leading Up” and “Leading Out” vignettes (two for Vignette A, pp. 10 – 16 and two for Vignette B1, pp. 20 - 25) are reproduced here for benefit of instructors. They may help alert you to some possible ways that students will frame these situations in terms of opportunities to lead. It is recommended that these responses notbe distributed to students.
Additional vignettes could be created for “self-leadership,” “leading down,” or “leading across” (i.e., across organizational boundaries, such as with a vendor and/or supplier) scenarios.
Students could be asked to write their own vignettes and/or rubrics. This could be especially helpful in teaching students (such as leadership educators) who have responsibility for supporting the development of other leaders.

Acknowledgements and Guidelines for Reproducing These Materials

The inspiration for using such “mini-cases” with rubrics came from Maria Kish. See:

Kish, M. H. Z. (2004). Using vignettes to develop higher order thinking and academic achievement in adult learners in an online environment (Doctoral dissertation, DuquesneUniversity, 2004). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (AAT 3145405).

Major credit for authoring the “Leading Up – Vignette A” and “Leading Out – Vignette B1” belongs to Patricia Doherty; for the rubrics, Sample Vignette (with response), and “Leading Out – Vignette B2) to Jim Wolford-Ulrich. Sample responses to the two vignettes were actual responses written by students of Patty Doherty.
Permission is hereby given for the reproduction and further distribution of these materials subject to the following conditions:
Inclusion of any of these vignettes, rubrics or sample responses in a published work requires permission of Patricia Doherty and Jim Wolford-Ulrich. Contact them at and .
Posting of this document or any portion thereof on the internet is prohibited.
Instructors in accredited leadership education programs may freely use and make copies of these materials in the context of their teaching provided that the copyright notice at the bottom of each page is preserved: “©2006 Duquesne University, Patricia Doherty, and Jim Wolford-Ulrich.”
If vignettes, the rubric, or other materials are modified or adapted for use in a course with different interpretive frameworks or based on different leadership models, we would appreciate (depending on the degree of similarity) inclusion of acknowledgment, such as: “Adapted from materials developed by Patricia Doherty and Jim Wolford-Ulrich of Duquesne University in 2006.”

Sample Vignette / 1

Sample Vignette

You are Lee Evans, Manager of Community Relations for a local animal shelter. You have worked there for 8 years and really enjoy the work you do, which includes public relations, special events, some fund raising, and serving as liaison for educational programs with local schools. You report to Pat Knox, the Director, who has only worked in the shelter 2 years, and only has a total of 5 years in animal rescue / animal rights organizations. Pat only has 1 year experience at the Director level.

The animal shelter has nearly doubled in size and capacity in the last 3 years, partly due to your efforts in garnering local support from the community, and partly due to the closure of another nearby facility.

Lately Pat has placed more and more demands on you, even for some things that fall outside your official duties. At first, you pitched in gladly, because the shelter was short on staff. Now, two key positions (Facility Manager and Manager of Animal Services) remain unfilled, and there appear to be no viable candidates being considered for either job. You are working longer and longer hours. Your enthusiasm for your regular job duties is waning. Your assistant asked you recently why you seemed irritable and short tempered. You have begun casually reading the employment ads, wondering if there are other opportunities that wouldn’t be so stressful.

Recently you heard that two other people who also report to Pat have had similar experiences. The Volunteer Coordinator has been asked several times recently to help clean up the facility at the end of the day, and the Veterinary Clinic Manager was asked to help answer the hotline when the phone attendant called in sick.

You had a performance appraisal 3 months ago, and Pat told you you were doing an outstanding job. Two weeks ago, you told Pat you are experiencing near-intolerable levels of stress, and you asked Pat how much longer it would be until the two open positions were filled. She simply answered, “Whenever we manage to find minimally qualified people who will agree to work for what little we can afford to pay them.” Yesterday you told Pat that next month, due to family commitments, you could not work more than your normal 40 hours per week. Pat replied that everyone else was pitching in, and asked, “Why aren’t you a good‘team player’ like the others?”

The animal shelter is governed by a seven-member non-paid Board of Directors. You are good friends with the current Board Chair. Other Board members are good friends with the Volunteer Coordinator and Clinic Manager.

This morning you see Pat come to work an hour and a half late. You resent the fact that you’re being asked to work overtime, while your boss is coming to work late.

What do you do as a leader in this situation, and why?

Sample Vignette Rubric / 1

Sample Vignette Rubric

The response is written in the first person, and the writer (student) identifies with the leader in the vignette.
The response uses language of personal responsibility. [Fault or blame is not placed on others. Perceptions are owned as the leader’s reality, not assumed to be how everyone views the situation. The leader seeks to understand his or her contribution to the problem, and moves toward a solution – not away from it. Commitments are not qualified by ‘perhaps’ or ‘maybe.’]
The leader’s response includes and is based upon a realistic assessment of the situation [Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond – reality – or other supporting source]
The response suggests and defends a framework (i.e., one of DeLuca’s 9 political styles) for viewing one or more actors in the vignette. [If the vignette does not contain adequate information to identify one style, speculate which 2 or 3 styles best fit the actor(s).]
The leader identifies what he or she wants in the situation, what is the vision or desired outcome(s) [Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond –vision – or other supporting source].
The response identifies and explores at least three choices for action available to the leader.
The leader’s response acknowledges risks and rewards inherent in the various options (e.g., in choices about how to use power, how to manage anxiety or personal stress, and in accepting the consequences of one’s actions) [Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond – courage – or other supporting source].
The response notes at least one area of uncertainty or ambiguity, and identifies one or more ways the leader will act to reduce it.
The response gives evidence that the leader is aware of how he or she feels about the situation and about his or her choices in the situation [emotional intelligence].
The response refers to results from one or more self-assessment instruments (e.g., Strengths Finder, Learning Style Inventory) and makes effective use of the leader’s strengths, perspectives, and relationships [use of self as an instrument of change]. [To the extent that it is consistent with the way the vignette describes the leader, assign one or more of your own strengths (e.g., obtained from the StrengthsFinder inventory) to the leader in the vignette. In other words, it is possible that two people – each with unique strengths – will respond to the vignette in somewhat different ways.]
The leader identifies one or more principles or behavioral guidelines (e.g., ethical considerations) that inform the situation [Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond – ethics – or other supporting source].
The response takes a positive approach, is not overcome by difficulties inherent in the situation, but identifies creative possibilities for action and/or moving the leader’s story forward [Koestenbaum’s Leadership Diamond – greatness – or other supporting source].

Response to Sample Vignette / 1

Response to Sample Vignette

Prolonged vacancies in two key positions have placed stress on the entire work unit. I do not know for a fact that these vacancies are Pat’s fault, as I am not directly involved in the hiring process for either position. [JWU1] Over time, these vacancies could lead to lost productivity, lowered quality, and a damaged reputation in the community, not to mention increased job dissatisfaction and potentially more staff turnover. [JWU2] In the short run, I am angry about what appears to be hypocrisy on Pat’s part, and I am worried about how I am going to meet my family obligations next month[JWU3]

What I want in this situation is for our shelter’s performance to regain its prior level, my boss’ managerial skills to improve, and my own work load to return to normal. [JWU4]

Pat’s two responses to me (both negative, both reactive) indicate she could be what DeLuca calls a Cynic.[JWU5]

One choice I have available to me is (1) to do nothing for now. When my family obligation draws closer, I could just remind Pat of my need, and reaffirm that I will work my regular 40 hours, and that I will be sure to perform my regular duties. I had a recent good performance review, in case Pat tries to take disciplinary action against me.

I could also (2) talk to my co-workers to find out if any of them knows how much longer these conditions will last. They may have additional information.

I could (3) let my friend, the Board Chair, know what is going on and hope that the proper action gets taken – and soon. If it didn’t happen fast enough, I could have my co-workers contact their friends on the Board.

[JWU6]

The course of action I plan to take, however, is (4) to talk privately with Pat. I will share my views of the situation and affirm the outcomes I want for the shelter and for myself. Then I will explore how I might help the situation. For example, I could offer to assist with recruitment of one or both of the open positions, or we could explore together how all of us could work together to speed up the recruitment and hiring process.[JWU7] This would be a natural use for my Restorative (problem solver) strength.[JWU8]

I would also share the de-motivating effect on me of being asked to work overtime, but then seeing my boss come in an hour and a half late. I suppose it’s possible the tardiness was work-related, but then I’d be giving Pat an opportunity to explain. [JWU9]Knowing this is important to me because of my Fairness (need for balance) strength.[JWU10]

Choices #1, 2 and 3 are the least risky for me personally. Choice #1 might help me achieve my vision for me personally, but is likely to do nothing to help the center as a whole return to normal staffing levels. Choice #2 could decrease trust between Pat and my-coworkers, and increase my co-workers’ dissatisfaction with Pat. Choice #3 could get Pat into trouble, and even if it led to a change in the situation. It might actually take longer for the staffing situation to be addressed. [JWU11]

Choice #4 will take more courage on my part. Of the four choices, it is the one that would help Pat to trust me more. In fact, it could help correct Pat’s misperception of me as not working collaboratively with the others. I would be modeling (leading by example) open, honest and direct communication that is sensitive to my needs and Pat’s needs and is appropriate to the situation – the kind of communication I want Pat and my co-workers to practice also. [JWU12]

I am not sure what else I can do in the face of Pat’s cynicism. I hope that my strength of Positivity can influence Pat for the better as I model optimism in this situation.[JWU13]

I believe choice #4 would be the most leader-like course of action, given my strengths and other dimensions of this situation.

References

Clifton, D., & Buckingham, M. (2001). Now discover your strengths. New York: Free Press.

DeLuca, J. R. (1999). Political savvy: Systematic approaches to leadership behind the scenes. Berwyn, PA: Evergreen Business Group.

Koestenbaum, P. (1991). The leadership diamond: Four strategies for greatness. In Leadership: The inner side of greatness(pp. 83-104). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leading Up – Vignette A / 1

“Leading Up”- Vignette A

The company in question, Healthcare Fixes, is a privately held manufacturer of healthcare equipment.The company has approximately 400 employees, has yearly revenue of $85 million, and relies exclusively on independent distributors to sell its product.

At issue is the creation of a four-day training program that is being created to train new hires who work for the independent distributors.Three regional managers have been given the task of creating modules that are to be combined for this four day training session.This sales program, once fully developed, would be adopted as the “official training program” and would be used by all eight regional managers in their territories to train new hires that have been brought on board by their distributors.

The three regional managers who have been given the task of creating the modules have all been hired by Stephen Banks, their direct supervisor and the National Sales Manager; all three were hired within the last three years.Stephen Banks has only been with the company for four years.He came to Healthcare Fixes having already established himself in a successful military career and a career in international sales. He has a degree in English.