Case study


After reading the case study below, identify the false assumptions the two parties made about each other, and then identify what truth had been hidden behind each of those assumptions.

Case Study

Last week, Marilyn had the chance to tell Dr. K about the difficulties she had been experiencing since he took over the department. She was shocked to discover he also was anxious for their talk, because he too was feeling the strain and had some needs he wanted to ask her about! Last week, we discovered she had:

Felt less important than she had felt before Dr. K took over
Was worried the other department secretaries didn’t respect her any more
Felt she was not in the loop about department information
Upset that her skills in word processing and computer scheduling seemed unimportant
Resented the open access policy Dr. K instituted because she could not control the department’s function
This week, we hear Dr. K’s opinion. This is what he has to say:

“You think it was easy coming into this department after Dr. Christopher’s retirement? Everybody here has worked in this department for years, and nothing has changed for years, either. The world of neurology has been turned upside down since the Human Genome Project in 2002, and nobody here acts like they ever heard of a gene. When I was hired, I was told I have to get this department up into the current standard. We have to attract and keep talent that will draw grant money for this department to survive, let alone excel like I want it to! I don’t’ like coming into a place and trying to change everything, but that is what I have to do if we are going to get our funding, and the entire thrust of the department has to come into the new millennium, here!

That’s why I spend so much time here. I’m the kind of person who has to check everything myself, and I’ve been walking the wards, trying to get the residents to start doing their rounds earlier so they are up to speed before grand rounds. Speaking of grand rounds, do you realize the neurology department hasn’t put on a presentation for grand rounds in four years? We are the laughing stock of the doctor’s lunch room. And, with the renovation of the meeting theater, how could we come in there hoping to do a grand round, even if we had the material, with a carrousel full of old-fashioned slides? Nobody uses slides any more! Everyone has these PowerPoint presentations, and all types of fancy graphics and film clips and such, and I barely know how to work my phone! That’s why I am in my office fooling with the devices all the time. If I don’t’ learn how to make these presentations, I can’t ask my staff to, and I certainly can’t ask you to!”

At this point, Marilyn stopped Dr. K (who was getting pretty worked up himself) and made some of her fresh ground Tanyanikan rainforest blend coffee. She had seen a whole different side of him, and she felt like she had in the old days: compassionate and involved. If he was feeling the heat, well, she knew how to help people in trouble! That was what she was famous for!

She suddenly saw a whole list of things she could help him with: everything from preparing the residents to select a patient and getting together a terrific presentation for grand rounds, to getting him an audio-video (AV) intern who would transfer department slides into sandiscs to be plugged into the equipment in the meeting theater. Why, he was trying to do it all alone! No wonder he looked so tense all the time! Marilyn felt herself relax for the first time in weeks. She smiled and sat comfortably back in her chair, continuing her mental list of the ways she could help him, help the department, and suddenly, she realized she felt just like the old days; important, very important.

As for Dr. K, he had totally misjudged what the neurology department secretary could, and more significantly, would do. He thought he had to tell Marilyn exactly what she should do, down to what type of font to use for the department minutes. He was doing things himself because he couldn’t decide all the things fast enough to delegate to others. He had no idea she was so interested in helping, and he totally misjudged how talented she was regarding how to get things done. He was thrilled to hear that she was willing to “close his door” for him and run interference on the constant flow of interruptions he had been subjecting himself to. What a help she was going to be, now that he knew she wanted to and was able to help him run things, and not just sit at her keyboard and type and answer the phone!

Case Study

This week, please read the continuing case at the end of Chapters 3 and 4 in your textbook.

After studying the Chapter 3 case, respond to the following:

  1. If you were in Mr. Land’s position, what would your response be to Ms. Fowler and why?


    Case Study:

    Henry Kirk and Janet Fowler are sitting across the desk from Tom Land, PCI’s loan officer at CCB Bank (once known as Clearwater County Bank, the bank now aspires to compete with the major regional banks for commercial loan business in this part of the state). They have come to ask for a 90-day, $100,000 note (loan), as they have many times in the past. The request should be routine. In fact, PCI’s 90-day loans are one of the mainstays of CCB’s business.

    This time, however, Tom asks some embarrassing questions about PCI’s flagging profits. Janet Fowler, as the only accountant present, has sup- ported PCI’s request with a couple of special arguments. She says PCI is in better shape than it appears. Profits are low because the clinic’s recent purchase of a third-generation lithotripter generated a big expense in the last quarter. Also, LIFO valuation has made inventories, actually a healthy item on the balance sheet, look artificially low. Besides, she says, if there is any trouble with current cash flows over the next 90 days, PCI can always pay off the note out of its substantial retained earnings.

    Need a Professional Writer to Work on this Paper and Give you Original Paper? 

After studying the Chapter 4 case, respond to the following:

  1. Refer to the financial statements that are presented for PCI, Inc. In Janet’s absence provide the answers to Dr. Jackson’s questions using this data.                                                                      See Attachment

Case study

Case study

Use the computer to write a short essay (between one-and-half and two pages per case study) in giving detailed response to these cases.

Case Study Five: The Case of the Falsified Data

Mickey Jordan had developed a collaborative social-impact assessment project involving two colleagues and three students. The six-person team was responsible for collecting field data in a wide geographical area at some distance from their university. Each person was responsible for a specific region. The data were fed, by region, into a computer on a weekly basis and monthly meetings were held so that progress reports could be made by team members. At these meetings,names of individuals who had been interviewed during the preceding period were given as a means of checking off the list of identified community specialists,so that the over all progress of the project could be ascertained. Information filed
in the computer did not contain informants’ names or other identifiers, as a measure for maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of informants. Each member of the team was paid by the funds made available through a contract with a federal agency (the faculty members were able to buy release time from teaching with contract funds).
Jordan had an occasion to be in the region assigned to one of the faculty members, Brian Cash, and happened to find himself talking with one of Cash’s reported informants, Henry Jones. Jordon took the opportunity to ask Jones for clarification of reported data that had puzzled him. Jones appeared confused and asked Jordan why he was asking him “these questions.” Jordan explained that he had been curious about specific details of Cash’s report and thought this would be an opportune time to get further information. Jones said that he had never heard of Brian Cash, much less having ever talked to him, and furthermore he did not even know a research project was being conducted in his community.
Jordan’s Dilemma: Should he accept Jones’s statement as a denial of participation in the project to maintain anonymity? Should he accuse Jones of lying? Should he drop the matter for the moment and later tell Cash about the incident? Perhaps Cash had lied about interviewing Jones? Should be confront Cash with this suspicion? Since it was some distance to the field site from the university, should he [Jordan] now seek out other informants Cash had reported on to determine whether or not they had been interviewed? Or, were there other tactics to be employed?

Case Study Six: Professor Purloins Student’s Work: Her Recourse?

Joelle Smith wrote an elaborate research proposal that was to be submitted to the National Science Foundation(NSF)for her doctoral dissertation research. Her dissertation supervisor signed off on the
proposal indicating his support of the project and his willingness to supervise Smith’s work. The project was funded for a two-year period.
Smith went into the field and at regular intervals sent copies of her field notes and other written data, along with preliminary analyses of her field problem,to her dissertation advisor. At the completion of fieldwork, Smith returned to her university for one year to write her dissertation.
During the writing period,she regularly read the journals related to her area of specialization. In one of the journals she read a paper published by her major advisor and was shocked to find statements taken directly from her letters, field notes, and data reports, with no credit given to her in the footnotes or
Angered by this discovery, Smith was nonetheless fearful that a direct confrontation with her advisor wouldresultinhimbecomingtyrannicalaboutherdissertationandimpedinghergraduation. At the same time, she realized that other members of her committee might have read the article and expect her to cite it in her dissertation, and further to accuse her of plagiarism because she had used the same [her own] data in her dissertation.
Smith’s Dilemma: Should she confront her advisor directly? Should she go to the department head with her discovery? Should she just keep quiet about the matter and “stew in her own anger” (as one person suggested)? Or,were there other tactics she could use to settle this problem?


Open chat
💬 Need help?
Hey there! 👋
Need help with this assignment?
Or any other?
PM us on WhatsApp.