Jennifer and Mike submitted different reports about an accident. Jennifer was not present and drew inferences from others' accounts, while Mike reported facts as an eyewitness. Their reports differed in outcomes described, reasoning provided, motives (self-interest vs getting rid of an employee), and relating the present to Mike's past versus just present facts. Perceptual errors contributed to the differences, including selective perception, halo effect, contrast effect, stereotyping, primacy effect, and recency effect on Jennifer's part. As manager, Aaron Moore should get additional details before deciding, like transportation policies, Mike's actions, sources of information, and reasons for recommended dismissal. Moore would not dismiss Mike as recommended until thoroughly investigating with an open

1. 1) Why are the two reports submitted by Jennifer and Mike so different?
•
The main reason for the two reports to be so different is that Jennifer not being
present at the scene had drawn inferences about the situation form the information
she received from various sources (which in turn can have perceptual errors). In
contrast, authenticity kept aside, information given by Mike in his report is set of
facts and not inferences.
•
Jennifer’s report is all about the outcomes without mention of any reasoning of such
an outcome, but Mike’s report is about the reasoning for such outcomes.
•
“Self-interest” and “difference in motives” may be another reason for the reports to
be so different. Mike might be trying to prove that he is not guilty to retain his job.
On the other hand, Jennifer might be trying to get rid of an inefficient employee
from the organisation.
•
One more reason for the reports to be so different is that Jennifer report tries to
relate the present outcome to past history of Mike, while Mike’s report is all about
the present situation.
•
Jennifer’s report is “an accusation and recommended judgment”, while Mike’s
report is “reasoning for his actions”
•
As the information received by Jennifer is through other sources, there is more
scope for subjectivity, bias, errors and distortions that could have influenced the
content of information. But the information provided by Mike is first-hand
information as he is the part of the situation.
2)
What are the different perpetual errors being brought out in the case?
•
Selective perception and Inference: people selectively interpret what they see on the basis
of their interests, background, experience and attitudes.
In this case, since Jennifer didn't observe everything regarding the accident, she
engaged in selective perception, which allowed her to "speed-read" Mike, but not
without the risk of drawing an inaccurate picture. Because she saw what she wanted to
see, she could have drawn unwarranted conclusions from an ambiguous situation.
Urgency to prepare report might be one more reason for her to switch to Selective
perception and judge Mike on limited information

2. •
Halo effect: when our general impression of a person is based on like one prominent
characteristic, which dominates our perception of other characteristics of that person.
In this case, Jennifer had created a general impression of Mike as a “Drunkard”
and she also perceived that at the time of accident he might be drunk. This impression
dominated the other characteristic of Mike, Social and friendly behaviour which made
him to join friends for after-work drinks.
•
Contrast effect: evaluation of person's characteristics that are affected by comparisons with
other people recently encountered who rank higher or lower on the same characteristics.
In this case, Jennifer contrasted his present cause of accident to decline in Mike’s
performance rating of driving
•
Stereo typing: Judging someone on the basis of one's perception of the group to which a
person belongs.
In this case, Jennifer had stereotype that “low performance drivers always cause
accidents” or “people who drink after work always drink” and jumped to conclusion
that Mike caused accident under the influence of alcohol.
•
Primacy effect: people often form impression of others on the first sight.
In this case, Mike’s missing from the site of accident and Mike’s presence at a
tavern having beer near the CTA formed the impression that Mike is irresponsible and
addicted to drinking. But, in reality the reasoning given by Mike may be correct with
regards to the above claims
•
Recency effect: Most recent information dominates our perception of others
In this case, Mike’s recent performance which has taken a nose dive in the last
six months is considered instead of his above - average performance for 8 years.

3. 3) If you were Aaron Moore, would you have asked for additional information
before taking a final decision?
Yes, if I were Aaron Moore I would have asked for additional information before taking
a final decision. The additional information would be
•
Sections of the CTA transportation agreement applicable in case of accident
•
Exact action is to be taken according to sections mentioned by Jennifer.
•
“Priority of action” with regard to accident.
•
How critical it is to report the accident to the company and union.
•
Exact time of accident, time of reporting to the company by mike about the accident
•
Distance of nearest phone
•
Accessibility to transportation from site of accident to the CTA terminal
•
Exact time Mike was seen drinking beer, whether it is before 3 P.M or after 3 P.M.
•
Sources of information on which Jennifer report relied
•
Reasons for decline in performance of Mike and his past history of accidents
•
Authenticity of the information provided by both Mike and Jennifer
•
Reason for having beer even in such critical circumstances
•
Whether hours spent at the terminal is considered duty hours, as he returned to the
terminal after having beer
•
Reason for recommending such serious punishment for such a minor accident.

4. 4) If you were Aaron Moore, would you have taken the action recommended
by Jennifer? Yes or No . In either case, give reasons to justify your decision ?
No, if I were Aaron Moore, I would not have taken the action recommended
by Jennifer. The following are the reasons to justify my decision
Reason 1:
Jennifer recommends “immediate dismissal”. Such a quick
decision without evaluating the case properly is generally not recommended.
Suspension from the duties till extensive investigation is more than enough
Reason 2: Rules to be followed in case of emergencies such as accidents are
not provided by Jennifer and nothing is known whether the sections quoted
by Jennifer hold true in case of accident.
Reason 3: Jennifer misinterprets “action to be taken against employee” as
immediate dismissal from the duties
Reason 4: Dismissal from job, which might be primary source of income for
Mike, is a critical decision as it impacts both his personal life and professional
life
Reason 5: Authenticity of the reports by both Mike and Jennifer is to be
evaluated before passing such serious judgement.
Reason 6: Alternate choice of punishments might be available even if Mike
were to find guilty. A mild admonishment or counselling at times solves the
purpose.
Reason 7: A sudden nose dive in performance from above-average shows that
he might be going through some bad phase in his life, it feels to me he might
need support rather than punishment