Linden Case

November 29, 2012

Team 4,

Beacon Hill,

Cambridge,

Boston, MA 01241

Prof. Katherine Stebbins,

HULT International Business School,

Cambridge,

Boston, MA 01241

Dear Professor,

After an hour long brainstorming on our team’s ideas, we arrived at a competitive strategy that we thought would lead both Linden and his GEC team members on a mutual note. Our basic idea was to run an effective GEC meeting. For which we’d used the below 3 W’s of running an efficient meeting,

* Whether the meeting’s objective was met?

* Whether the meeting time was used in an efficient manner?

* Whether an agreement was made at the end of the meeting?

Our aim was to set up a meeting hall, where all the participants share their view point and the manager emphasizes each member to arrive at a decision. In that way, we believe that we have sequenced the entire script good enough to be persuasive.

Considering the 3W’s, each character’s cultural and experience background and other facts that were mentioned on the case, we framed our ideas to script the skit. Further, going by the information given on the case, and with our teams past experience in the corporate world, we were sure that the GEC members could be made to agree to Linden’s proposal, if Linden negotiates with the regional director’s bonuses.

We understood that one of the major reasons the GEC members were skeptical was due to their corporate work culture. Since this was the first ever time, such a thing was proposed, there was an uncertainty of personal welfare. So we made sure that the uncertainty was addressed while we crafted our script.

Finally, we wanted our script to stick to the agenda of meeting Linden’s objective, whilst the employee satisfaction’s made sure.

Best Regards

Team 4 BH