MGMT 3010 Quiz 1 - Complete Study Set
Ford simulation — good vs bad visions - ANSWER • Bad: "Working toward a better
future together" (abstract)
• Too long: "Imagine a world where your children don't have to..." (novel-length)
• Great: "On every street, a Ford employee bounds out of a self-driving vehicle to deliver
a package into a smiling customer's hands"
• Good milestones: 2028 first prototype → 2030 first package delivered → 2032
1,000,000 packages
Essay — Influence matrix answer structure - ANSWER For EACH of the 6 stages:
1. Name the PROBLEM
2. Name + DEFINE + EXPLAIN the bias (why it happens)
3. Cite evidence/example from class or a reading
4. State the TACTIC
5. APPLY it concretely to your person/group
• Open with your goal + the person/group; close by tying stages together
Essay — evidence bank per stage - ANSWER • S1 Vision: Trope & Liberman book
study; Esserman "under one roof"; Crystal Jones "3rd graders"; Starbucks
• S2 Milestones: finite attention; Mercury→Gemini→Apollo; ALL's 4 rules; 1% milk; jam
study
• S3 Roles: curse of knowledge; engineers vs manufacturers; Boeing 727; "pluck the
second string"
• S4 Emotion: see-feel-change; Glove Shrine; Target; Re-Mission
• S5 Tweaks: FAE; organ donors 12% vs 99%; food-drive map; Beach House sofa
• S6 Needs: false generalization; Drive (autonomy/mastery/purpose); GE engineers;
Velocity stretch goal
Baker: Redundancy - ANSWER Redundancy = (2 × ties among your contacts) ÷ # of
contacts
• Baker worksheet: E = (2 × B) ÷ A
• A = # of contacts (alters)
• B = actual ties among them
• Higher = contacts overlap more = less reach
Baker: Effective size - ANSWER Effective size = # of contacts − redundancy
• Baker worksheet: F = A − E
• Same # of contacts can mean very different effective size
Sue vs Bill: redundancy + effective size (6 contacts each) - ANSWER • Sue (1 tie):
redundancy = 2×1 ÷ 6 ≈ 0.33 → effective size ≈ 5.67
• Bill (9 ties): redundancy = 2×9 ÷ 6 = 3 → effective size = 3
• Same size (6), but Sue's network reaches ~2× as far
,You have 5 contacts; 4 ties among them. Density, redundancy, effective size? -
ANSWER • Possible = 5×4÷2 = 10
• Density = 4 ÷ 10 = 40%
• Redundancy = 2×4 ÷ 5 = 1.6
• Effective size = 5 − 1.6 = 3.4
Cross & Parker tables: what does "23% of possible relationships" mean? - ANSWER •
It's a density for that cell: actual ties ÷ possible ties
• Table 2-2 is DIRECTED (who seeks info from whom): partners→managers 23% vs
managers→partners 56%
• Diagonal = connectivity within a level (partners 67%, staff 21%)
Brokers & idea evaluation (Burt) - ANSWER • X-axis = network CONSTRAINT (how
closed/dense your personal network is)
• Higher constraint → managers rate your ideas LOWER
• Higher constraint → more likely to have NO idea or have it DISMISSED
• → Brokers (open networks) produce better-rated ideas
Brokers & salary / promotion (Burt) - ANSWER • Higher network constraint (closed
network) →
- LOWER salary vs peers
- LESS likely to get a promotion/raise
- LESS likely to get an "outstanding" review
- MORE likely to get a "poor" review
• → Individual density hurts YOU; brokering pays
Quiz 1 — What's on it? - ANSWER • Wed Sept 23, in class, blue book (handwritten)
• Covers Sessions 1-6 (NOT Session 7)
• 320 pts (biggest chunk before Quiz 3)
• ~4 networks questions → "know the equations"
• 1 long open-ended question → the influence matrix
Quiz 1 — How to ace the long question (Carton's own tips) - ANSWER • Know all 6
problems + 6 biases
• DEFINE + EXPLAIN each bias (don't just name it)
• Use ideas & examples from class AND readings
• Apply all 6 tactics to a person/group you want to influence
• Be clear on your goal + how each tactic applies
• Avoid vague "AI-sounding" writing — be concrete
Employee engagement stats - ANSWER • 70% disengaged
• 17% completely withdrawn
• 30% engaged (20% profoundly)
What explains LOW vs HIGH engagement? - ANSWER • Low → 2 categories of leader
missteps
, • High → antidotes a minority of leaders use to counter those missteps
The 2 leader missteps (Themes A & B) - ANSWER • Theme A: we misunderstand
OURSELVES
• Theme B: we misunderstand OTHERS
Illusion of transparency - ANSWER • Belief that our hidden thoughts/emotions "leak out"
and are easy for others to read
• Example of misunderstanding OURSELVES (Theme A)
• → We communicate less clearly than we think
Tasters vs Observers experiment (Gilovich 1998) - ANSWER • Tasters drank soda
(some with vinegar) and hid reactions
• Tasters predicted observers would be 16% above chance at guessing
• Observers were actually only 3% above chance
• Replicated: lie detection, public-speaking nerves, negotiations
"Why 90% Doesn't Work" t-shirt (Michael) - ANSWER • Example of illusion of
transparency
• Message was vague + unhelpful
• Fix = concrete communication
Solution to misstep #1 (misunderstanding ourselves) - ANSWER • The power of
CONCRETENESS in communication
• Feedback study (Kluger & DeNisi 1996):
- Abstract feedback: d = .09
- Concrete feedback: d = .43
Solution to misstep #2 (misunderstanding others) - ANSWER • Redesign work so
people can satisfy core psychological needs
• Examples of needs: meaningfulness, mastery, achievement, autonomy, relationships
What supervisors THINK people want vs what they ACTUALLY want - ANSWER •
Supervisors think: good wages, job security, promotions
• People actually want: appreciation, belonging & voice, empathic bosses
• Wharton survey: students ranked "interesting work" 4th for classmates → it was
actually #1
Harms of poor relationships - ANSWER • Lower well-being
• Physical PAIN — social exclusion activates brain's pain areas
• Die younger (148 studies, 300,000 people)
Employee Engagement - ANSWER 30% of employees are engaged and only 20%
profoundly so
Theme A - ANSWER We misunderstand ourselves
Ford simulation — good vs bad visions - ANSWER • Bad: "Working toward a better
future together" (abstract)
• Too long: "Imagine a world where your children don't have to..." (novel-length)
• Great: "On every street, a Ford employee bounds out of a self-driving vehicle to deliver
a package into a smiling customer's hands"
• Good milestones: 2028 first prototype → 2030 first package delivered → 2032
1,000,000 packages
Essay — Influence matrix answer structure - ANSWER For EACH of the 6 stages:
1. Name the PROBLEM
2. Name + DEFINE + EXPLAIN the bias (why it happens)
3. Cite evidence/example from class or a reading
4. State the TACTIC
5. APPLY it concretely to your person/group
• Open with your goal + the person/group; close by tying stages together
Essay — evidence bank per stage - ANSWER • S1 Vision: Trope & Liberman book
study; Esserman "under one roof"; Crystal Jones "3rd graders"; Starbucks
• S2 Milestones: finite attention; Mercury→Gemini→Apollo; ALL's 4 rules; 1% milk; jam
study
• S3 Roles: curse of knowledge; engineers vs manufacturers; Boeing 727; "pluck the
second string"
• S4 Emotion: see-feel-change; Glove Shrine; Target; Re-Mission
• S5 Tweaks: FAE; organ donors 12% vs 99%; food-drive map; Beach House sofa
• S6 Needs: false generalization; Drive (autonomy/mastery/purpose); GE engineers;
Velocity stretch goal
Baker: Redundancy - ANSWER Redundancy = (2 × ties among your contacts) ÷ # of
contacts
• Baker worksheet: E = (2 × B) ÷ A
• A = # of contacts (alters)
• B = actual ties among them
• Higher = contacts overlap more = less reach
Baker: Effective size - ANSWER Effective size = # of contacts − redundancy
• Baker worksheet: F = A − E
• Same # of contacts can mean very different effective size
Sue vs Bill: redundancy + effective size (6 contacts each) - ANSWER • Sue (1 tie):
redundancy = 2×1 ÷ 6 ≈ 0.33 → effective size ≈ 5.67
• Bill (9 ties): redundancy = 2×9 ÷ 6 = 3 → effective size = 3
• Same size (6), but Sue's network reaches ~2× as far
,You have 5 contacts; 4 ties among them. Density, redundancy, effective size? -
ANSWER • Possible = 5×4÷2 = 10
• Density = 4 ÷ 10 = 40%
• Redundancy = 2×4 ÷ 5 = 1.6
• Effective size = 5 − 1.6 = 3.4
Cross & Parker tables: what does "23% of possible relationships" mean? - ANSWER •
It's a density for that cell: actual ties ÷ possible ties
• Table 2-2 is DIRECTED (who seeks info from whom): partners→managers 23% vs
managers→partners 56%
• Diagonal = connectivity within a level (partners 67%, staff 21%)
Brokers & idea evaluation (Burt) - ANSWER • X-axis = network CONSTRAINT (how
closed/dense your personal network is)
• Higher constraint → managers rate your ideas LOWER
• Higher constraint → more likely to have NO idea or have it DISMISSED
• → Brokers (open networks) produce better-rated ideas
Brokers & salary / promotion (Burt) - ANSWER • Higher network constraint (closed
network) →
- LOWER salary vs peers
- LESS likely to get a promotion/raise
- LESS likely to get an "outstanding" review
- MORE likely to get a "poor" review
• → Individual density hurts YOU; brokering pays
Quiz 1 — What's on it? - ANSWER • Wed Sept 23, in class, blue book (handwritten)
• Covers Sessions 1-6 (NOT Session 7)
• 320 pts (biggest chunk before Quiz 3)
• ~4 networks questions → "know the equations"
• 1 long open-ended question → the influence matrix
Quiz 1 — How to ace the long question (Carton's own tips) - ANSWER • Know all 6
problems + 6 biases
• DEFINE + EXPLAIN each bias (don't just name it)
• Use ideas & examples from class AND readings
• Apply all 6 tactics to a person/group you want to influence
• Be clear on your goal + how each tactic applies
• Avoid vague "AI-sounding" writing — be concrete
Employee engagement stats - ANSWER • 70% disengaged
• 17% completely withdrawn
• 30% engaged (20% profoundly)
What explains LOW vs HIGH engagement? - ANSWER • Low → 2 categories of leader
missteps
, • High → antidotes a minority of leaders use to counter those missteps
The 2 leader missteps (Themes A & B) - ANSWER • Theme A: we misunderstand
OURSELVES
• Theme B: we misunderstand OTHERS
Illusion of transparency - ANSWER • Belief that our hidden thoughts/emotions "leak out"
and are easy for others to read
• Example of misunderstanding OURSELVES (Theme A)
• → We communicate less clearly than we think
Tasters vs Observers experiment (Gilovich 1998) - ANSWER • Tasters drank soda
(some with vinegar) and hid reactions
• Tasters predicted observers would be 16% above chance at guessing
• Observers were actually only 3% above chance
• Replicated: lie detection, public-speaking nerves, negotiations
"Why 90% Doesn't Work" t-shirt (Michael) - ANSWER • Example of illusion of
transparency
• Message was vague + unhelpful
• Fix = concrete communication
Solution to misstep #1 (misunderstanding ourselves) - ANSWER • The power of
CONCRETENESS in communication
• Feedback study (Kluger & DeNisi 1996):
- Abstract feedback: d = .09
- Concrete feedback: d = .43
Solution to misstep #2 (misunderstanding others) - ANSWER • Redesign work so
people can satisfy core psychological needs
• Examples of needs: meaningfulness, mastery, achievement, autonomy, relationships
What supervisors THINK people want vs what they ACTUALLY want - ANSWER •
Supervisors think: good wages, job security, promotions
• People actually want: appreciation, belonging & voice, empathic bosses
• Wharton survey: students ranked "interesting work" 4th for classmates → it was
actually #1
Harms of poor relationships - ANSWER • Lower well-being
• Physical PAIN — social exclusion activates brain's pain areas
• Die younger (148 studies, 300,000 people)
Employee Engagement - ANSWER 30% of employees are engaged and only 20%
profoundly so
Theme A - ANSWER We misunderstand ourselves
