Explain and defend in detail why you either do or do not (take a stand and choose one) believe Roizen needs to change her approach to social networking in order to be a successful venture capitalist. If she should change, why should she change and how sho

The case analysis involves answering one big question about whichever of the three cases above you choose and thoroughly supporting/defending your logic/answer with class content from that broad area of the class. For instance, although Big Spaceship is used to learn about structure (classes 6-7), your answer to the question should draw heavily from teachings, frameworks, insights, etc. from the other subareas as well (i.e., Frameworks for Understanding Organizations, Strategy, Culture, and Leadership; sessions 3-10) within the broader area of Organizations. The same idea would apply were you to choose Heidi Roizen (using the subareas within “Groups”; sessions 12-20) or Wolfgang Keller (using the subareas within “People; sessions 22-26). You do not need to draw from all subareas within the broader area, but you should discuss at least three and use all that help you best defend your answer. The question will typically ask that you recommend and describe a course of action—it will never be about “fact finding” in the case (facts are important only in supporting your answer).

Important notes on Case Analysis assignment:

• The goal of this assignment is to force you to think about applying the course content when answering a question (e.g., recommending and describing a course of action) about a particular case. This assignment is not meant for you to simply regurgitate the class material, it is to apply class material to the particular context and details of the case and use it as a set of tools to support your answer.
• Case Analyses that receive the best grades will:
  • Provide a compelling answer to the question about the case, using sound logic and any/all appropriate class content to support one’s position
  • Display an ability to integrate class content together, showing the relationship between topics in the context of the case and question (an “open systems” approach to studying organizations)
  • Some acknowledgment of the limitations, risks, etc. of taking the course of action you recommend in your answer (i.e., the ability to see the downsides of one’s approach), and articulation of why you still support the position that you do
  • Are specific as possible in their recommendations, logic, and examples, rather than offering vague and general statements
• The Case Analysis should be 5-7 pages long, double spaced, with 12 point font. Students who violate these standards will lose a professionalism point as these guidelines are stated on the syllabus.
• Feel free to use headings to organize your answer.
• Using overly long, drawn-out, esoteric prose will make it very challenging to complete this assignment within 5-7 pages. Writing in the workplace needs to clear and concise without sacrificing detail or thoughtfulness (i.e., clear writing = clear thinking). Direct language with well-considered, organized arguments is impactful; unnecessarily “big” words and flowery, disorganized statements are less so.
• You do not need to offer citations for class material within your answer, and it is not required that you draw from outside sources (e.g., academic articles, chapters, books, newspapers, magazines) to support your answer. However, if you do, please cite these outside sources (e.g., footnotes/endnotes, reference section, etc.). I don’t care how you cite any outside sources; I simply want them to be cited in some fashion.

Grading for the Case Analysis (20 possible points):

 

• Overall clarity and organization of the written presentation (2 pts.)
• Demonstrated understanding of the case (1 pt.)
• Ability to directly address and answer the question; appropriate logic to support one’s viewpoint (7 pts.)
• Demonstrated mastery of the course material; how well the three or more subareas are integrated together (7 pts.)
• Specificity (versus generality) of answer, conclusions, recommendations, etc. (3 pts.)