Case Analysis: Dave Armstrong (a)

Organisational Behavior Case Analysis: Dave Armstrong (A) Case Summary: This case is about Dave Armstrong, a 29 year old second year MBA student of Harvard Business School. Immediately after his graduation from a small liberal arts college in Texas, he started working for Thorne Enterprises as a computer Programmer. After eighteen months in the job, he quit to go into life insurance business in Amarillo.

He applied to Harvard Business school but hadn’t considered what he would do, once accepted, he decided to go there as he and his wife wouldn’t have to compromise on their lifestyle as he would still be receiving renewal income from his old policy holders. Now, he is 3 months away from his graduation and he has three job prospects and has to evaluate all before he makes his final decision keeping in mind his and his wife’s desires. He calls them Job A, Job B & Job C. Following are the characteristics of all the three jobs:

Job A: This is the job Dave really wants, since it has the most upside potential but it has chances of not working out at all. Also, this job requires a large investment from Dave which would mean digging into his savings. In addition to profit sharing, Dave would also be given salary and bonus to start up and run the facility. His wife wouldn’t prefer him to join this as it involves significant risk of losing all the money put in by Dave. Job B: Has better odds of working out but doesn’t quite have the excitement.

It is about setting up a corporation that would actively seek out producing oil leases that might be for sale. It requires significantly less investment than Job A. However, this job is only a short-term deal, as after two years the oil & gas glut will be gone and the attractiveness of the business will also disappear. After this, Dave will stay on with Irwin as an agent or broker to sell oil & gas properties. There would be no equity role in this for Dave, however he will be able to make large number of contacts of prospective buyers and sellers.

Job C: This is what he calls a traditional job. It is with a pension fund management company in Houston. Dave would get 45000 dollars as securities analyst till the original position is available in 6-12 months. Dave’s wife wants him to choose this job as this does not require any investment and is a fairly secure job not involving any risk or uncertainty. According to Dave’s perspective, to satisfy his personality aspects and aspirations, he should choose Job A.

However, according to his wife’s wishes, she would want him to choose Job C, as it is safer and more reliable. Hence, we must do a weighted analysis of all his important attributes and do a comparison of all the three jobs. We also need to understand that Job A and Job B will have 2 different situations each, a situation if all goes well (high) and a situation if nothing goes well (low) Weight | Attributes| Job AHigh| Low| Job BHigh| Low| Job C| 2| Equity | 2| 0| 1| 0| 0| 4| Bonus| 4| 0| 3| 0| 0| . 5| Salary security| 2| 1| 3| 2| 3. 5| 5| Fun and Flexibility| 5| 3. 5| 4| 2. 5| 0| 3| Travel| 1. 5| 1. 5| 3| 2| 0| 4. 5| Contacts| 2. 5| 1. 5| 4. 5| 3| 3| Ideas| 3| 2. 5| 3| 2| 1| | Probability| 0. 2| 0. 8| 0. 4| 0. 6| -| | Total | 15. 35| 31. 8| 33. 1| 27| 15. 25| According to the calculations in the table above, Job A =47. 15, Job B=60. 1, Job C=15. 25. Therefore, Dave should choose Job B as it has the highest value according to the weighted analysis of his desired attributes.