Case Study Analysis Template Goals · Establish key factors ✓ Solved

Case Study Analysis Template Goals · Establish key factors in support of a persuasive argument related to the case · Create a logical connection between facts and recommendations · Justify connections with evidence from the case Elements As you are writing your analysis, remember to address it to the principal decision maker in the case, not to your course Instructor. In your analysis, include the following headings (in bold). By carefully addressing each of these elements, you will create a well-structured and comprehensive case study analysis that showcases your critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and ability to provide evidence-based recommendations for real-world business challenges. · Background of the Problem: In this section, provide a comprehensive overview of the problem presented in the case study.

It should include relevant background information about the company and key players/stakeholders, historical context, and an analysis of the factors that led to the issue at hand. By thoroughly understanding the problem's background, you will be able to lay the foundation for your subsequent analysis and recommendations. · Key Factors Supporting Recommendations: In this part of the case study analysis, identify and elaborate on the crucial factors that support your proposed recommendations. These factors can be internal or external to the organization in the case study. You should provide evidence and sound reasoning to justify each of these key factors. The aim is to demonstrate a deep understanding of the case and the implications of your proposed solutions. · Recommendations: This section outlines the specific solutions or strategies that you have suggested to address the problem identified in the case study.

Each recommendation should be well defined, actionable, and directly linked to the key factors presented earlier. You should consider various stakeholders, potential challenges, and the feasibility of implementing their recommendations in a real-world setting. · Goal(s): Here, you will articulate the desired outcomes or objectives that your recommendations aim to achieve. Goals should be clear, measurable, and aligned with the overall purpose of the case study analysis. By setting specific goals, you can track the effectiveness of your proposed solutions and measure the success of the implemented strategies. · Action Items: In this part of the analysis, you will break down their recommendations into specific tasks or action items.

Each action item should be accompanied by a clear explanation of what needs to be done, who is responsible for its execution, and a realistic timeline. This level of detail allows for a systematic and organized approach to implementing the proposed solutions. · Action Plans: The action plans section outlines the step-by-step process for how the recommended action items will be executed. It involves outlining the strategies, methodologies, and resources needed for successful implementation. You should consider potential challenges and mitigation plans to ensure smooth execution of your proposed solutions. · Metrics to Support Learning so That Continuous Improvement Is Possible: This section focuses on identifying the relevant metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be used to assess the success of the recommendations and monitor progress over time.

You should select measurable metrics that align with the established goals. The inclusion of metrics enables continuous improvement and allows for data-driven decision making throughout the implementation process. Case Analysis Template DATE: TO: [Principal Decision Maker in the Case] FROM: [Student’s Name] RE: [Name of Case Study] Background of the Problem: Key Factors Supporting Recommendations: · · · · · Recommendations: Goal(s): · · Action Items: · · · · Action Plans: · · · · Metrics to Support Learning so That Continuous Improvement Is Possible: ARTICLE HBR CASE STUDY Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves— or the One He Wants? Not all the members of a high-profile team are doing their share of the work. by Anthony J.

Mayo, Joshua D. Margolis, and Amy Gallo REPRINT R2001X PUBLISHED IN HBR JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2020 This document is authorized for use only by Marneze Antoine Davis in Contemp Challenges in Business-Winter 2025 at Walden University (Canvas), 2025. THE KICKOFF “You’re always reliable,†Nisha Nayad said to her colleague Mark Cruz as she entered the meeting room. “I got here a minute ago,†Mark replied, smiling as he opened his lunch. They both looked at the clock on the wall and laughed.

“I think we’re the only two people at Ness who show up early,†Nisha said. “Glad you’re on this team.†Punctuality wasn’t a big part of the culture at the gaming company Ness Entertainment,1 so it didn’t bother Nisha that her coworker Ben Lassner still hadn’t arrived by a few minutes past noon. The three of them didn’t typically work together, but they were about to. As members of Ness’s Innovation Board, a group HBR’s fictionalized case studies present problems faced by leaders in real companies and offer solutions from experts. This one is based on the HBS case study “Ramesh Patel at Aragon Entertainment Limited†(case no.

412042-PDF-ENG), by Anthony J. Mayo and Joshua D. Margolis, which is available at HBR.org. CASE STUDY Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants? by Anthony J. Mayo, Joshua D.

Margolis, and Amy Gallo Illustrations by RYAN GARCIA selected from across the com- pany to work directly with the executive committee on devel- oping recommendations for line extensions and new titles, they’d been given a new, highly visible assignment—one that Nisha, a business development associate director, was excited about. She, Mark, and Ben had huddled quickly a week earlier to lay out a work plan for analyz- ing customer data and the competitive market for one of Ness’s hottest games, Sokontia, so that they could choose an appropriate follow-up story line and the timing for a sequel. Nisha was happy with both her teammates.2 Mark, an associate director of marketing, had an excellent reputation.

And Ben, a quality control engineer, had been a friend since they’d met CO PY RI G H T © H AR VA RD B US IN ES S SC H O O L PU BL IS H IN G C O RP O RA TI O N . A LL R IG H TS R ES ER VE D. 2 Harvard Business Review January–February 2020 This document is authorized for use only by Marneze Antoine Davis in Contemp Challenges in Business-Winter 2025 at Walden University (Canvas), 2025. during new-employee orienta- tion. They still got together for lunch every few months, and because they were at the same level in different functions, they often traded notes and advice about their work at Ness. At 12:10 Ben walked into the room, apologizing.

“It’s already been a day. A week, really. We’ve been doing QC on Knight Days,†he said, referring to one of Ness’s older products, which was about to release a new version. “And I forgot we were doing lunch. Let me go grab my food.

Feel free to start without me.†When he returned, Nisha began sharing what she’d found in her initial review of the customer data on Sokontia. “It’s clearly filling a void,†she said. “The story line is a hit, and although the graphics get some mixed reviews, I think there’s potential for an early extension.†“I agree,†Mark chimed in. Because he was in marketing, he had taken on the initial task of reading through user reviews from influencers. “A few review- ers are already talking about what a 2.0 might look like.

Did you see the PDF I sent with the highlights?†He turned his laptop toward them to show the file. Nisha had read it carefully the night before. “When did you send this?†Ben asked, squinting at the screen. “Wednesday,†Mark replied. “Oh, right,†Ben said, taking a bite of his sandwich.

“We just need to see how this all overlays with the usage statistics.†“Exactly,†Mark said. He nodded expectantly, but Ben kept eating. Nisha was confused. They had agreed that Ben would do the initial analysis on those statistics. “You didn’t look at usage?†Mark asked, a slight edge to his voice.

“Or read through anything either of us sent?†“Not yet,†Ben admitted. “I guess let’s get you up to speed then,†Mark said tersely. Nisha was annoyed too, and she wondered whether she should say something. Ness’s HR department was big on peer feed- back. At the urging of the CEO, Martine Skoll, the company had rolled out two initiatives aimed at getting people to be more honest and direct with one another: first difficult-conversations training, and then an app that allowed employees to submit ratings and short snippets of feedback directly to teammates on their performance.

Toward the end of the meeting Nisha gave herself a mental pep talk and asked Ben, as calmly as she could, “Why didn’t you do what you said you’d do?†He flinched a little, but he’d been through the training too, so he probably knew he was sup- posed to engage without getting his hackles up. “I dropped the ball. My bad. The day after I found out about this project, I was put in charge of the QC push for Knight Days. It’s consumed me and my team.

We’ve been understaffed since May. I won’t show up this unpre- pared again. Promise.†Ben left, and Nisha walked with Mark to the elevator. “I’ve been on too many projects with people who expect me to carry their weight,†he said. “We’re not letting that happen here.â€â€‰3 Nisha agreed with Mark but also knew that Ben was prob- ably in a tough spot.

His boss had a reputation for holding her team to an extremely high standard. And didn’t everyone miss deadlines occasionally? Ben had never been unreliable when they’d worked on small projects together in the past. So she wasn’t worried—not really. “I trust him,†she reassured Mark.

“He’ll keep his word.†“He’d better,†Mark warned. Case Study Classroom Notes 1. The global video game industry had revenues of more than $130 billion in 2018, with mobile games being the fastest-growing and largest segment. 2. What are the benefits—or the downsides—of being on an ad hoc team, in which members often have no prior agreement on how to collaborate?

3. “Social loafing,†when a team member disengages from the group’s process and fails to contribute to its work, is a common phenomenon. Experience FOR ARTICLE REPRINTS CALL OR , OR VISIT HBR.ORG Harvard Business Review January–February 2020  3 This document is authorized for use only by Marneze Antoine Davis in Contemp Challenges in Business-Winter 2025 at Walden University (Canvas), 2025. NO SURPRISES Three weeks later Nisha was on the train with her laptop open. During her 45-minute commute home, she always tackled a single task.

Today it was the presenta- tion for the executive committee. She, Mark, and Ben had met three more times and had put together what Nisha felt was a strong analysis and an aggressive recom- mendation. When the Innovation Board met with the executive committee the following Monday, the team was going to suggest launching an extension of Sokon- tia as soon as possible, on a faster timeline than the company had ever previously managed. She had agreed to pull the pre- sentation together for the team by the next day. She was just waiting for Ben to send his last two slides.

She refreshed her email at 5:40 pm, and seeing nothing from him, texted, “Any update?†He’d promised to send his slides by end of day. He texted back immediately: “So sorry. If I send you the rough data, can you produce the slides?†Nisha took a deep breath. She really had thought he would come through. She typed, “No, I can’t.

Can u stop being an idiot?†But then she deleted it. She didn’t want to do anything to jeopar- dize her chances of impressing the executive committee. Even though Ben deserved a lashing for how much he’d slacked off on this project, she couldn’t get into a fight with him now. And her slides would be better anyway. She texted, “Sure.

Send it.â€â€‰4 “I owe you one,†he replied. You sure do, she thought. Nisha’s thoughts quickly turned to the new peer feedback app. At the previous month’s Innovation Board meeting, HR had announced that everyone was expected to use it after the next round of projects. So Nisha would have to rate both Ben’s and Mark’s performance soon—on a scale of 0 to 5—and she’d be rated by them.5 It hadn’t come up in their meet- ings, but it was on her mind—and probably theirs, too.

On the train now, she fanta- sized about pressing the 0 next to Ben’s name, but then she felt guilty. He was her friend. And HR had said that there should be no surprises in the ratings, meaning that teammates should share feedback along the way so that people could either improve or know what numbers to expect.6 She texted Ben again: “Can we talk for a minute? I’m going to call you when I get to my stop.†When he answered the phone, he was apologetic. She inter- rupted him: “It’s OK.

I mean, it’s not OK, but I wanted you to know that I’m frustrated, and I feel like I’ve been covering for you—†“It’s just that my other work—†4. What might Nisha have texted to Ben at this point, rather than silencing her concern? 5. Many peer feedback systems, such as JetBlue’s Lift program and Hershey’s Smiles program, favor positive recognition over constructive criticism. 6.

Experts recommend including three things when giving feedback: a concrete description of the behavior, its impact, and who was affected. Experience 4 Harvard Business Review January–February 2020 This document is authorized for use only by Marneze Antoine Davis in Contemp Challenges in Business-Winter 2025 at Walden University (Canvas), 2025. “You’ve said that several times.†Nisha was intentionally being short. She didn’t want to sugarcoat her feelings about this. Ben was quiet for a minute.

Then he said, “I’m really appre- ciative of everything. And I hope you know I’d do the same for you.†I doubt that, Nisha thought. And even if you would, I’d never ask you to. That night she sent a quick note to her mentor from her last job, Dennis Hodges: “Can we meet tomorrow? I need your advice.†TO BE HONEST The next morning Nisha met with Dennis at a diner near his office and explained what had hap- pened during the project.

“It’s not like I did all of his work,†she said, “but when he got in trouble with deadlines, I definitely finished some of what he’d started. The other team member, Mark, has been annoyed too, but he hasn’t picked up Ben’s slack as much as I have.7 That’s on me. I didn’t have to do any of it, but I want this assignment to go well. And it will. I’m confident we’re going to knock it out of the park on Monday.

We’ve done the analysis, we’ve got the data, and our recommendation is bold.†Dennis smiled. “I have no doubts. So what are you thinking?†“I’m most nervous about this peer-rating system. If I were being honest, I’d probably give him a 2.â€â€‰8 “What’s holding you back?†Dennis asked. Nisha had to think about that for a second.

“It doesn’t feel like it’s entirely his fault. He’s had a lot of other commitments and a ton of pressure from his boss. And we’ve known each other since I started at Ness. So I’m worried about putting a low rating on his permanent record—especially since Mark told me he’s giving him a 3. Ben’s tough and would probably recover.

But he might also hold a grudge.†“Have you spoken directly with Ben about this already?†“Yes, several times.†“So,†Dennis said, “I would give him the rating he deserves.†JUST ONCE On the morning of the presenta- tion, Ben asked Nisha to meet him at the café down the street. She assumed he wanted to go over his slides, since she knew them better than he did at this point. “I just wanted to thank you again for everything,†he said. “I’ll admit that I almost feel bad about my name being on there.†Nisha knew that the polite thing would be to protest, but she 7. Why might men and women respond differently to teammates who aren’t doing their share?

8. Does Nisha know what her purpose is in giving this feedback? Experts say that having clear intentions improves the quality of feedback, the openness of the recipient, the durability of the relationship, and the value of subsequent discussion and learning. FOR ARTICLE REPRINTS CALL OR , OR VISIT HBR.ORG Harvard Business Review January–February 2020  5 This document is authorized for use only by Marneze Antoine Davis in Contemp Challenges in Business-Winter 2025 at Walden University (Canvas), 2025. bit her tongue. They sat there awkwardly for a moment.

“It’s really been a tough few weeks,†Ben said, trying to break the tension. Nisha nodded. “I would understand if you rated me poorly on the feedback thing, but I hope you won’t,†he continued. Nisha suddenly realized why he’d asked for this meeting—and paid for her coffee. “If you were in my shoes, I’d have your back and give you a 5, or at least a 4,†Ben said.

“I haven’t decided what I’m going to do,†she answered truthfully. “Everyone has bad days.†“We’ve been working on this for weeks,†she said, realizing that her tone was getting sharp. Ben’s voice got testier too. “You know what I mean. My boss will freak if I get bad ratings.

And I know Mark’s giving me a 3. If you give me a 5, it’ll balance out. I know I don’t deserve it, but I’m hoping you can do this for me, as a friend. Just once.†Reprint Case only R2001X ANTHONY J. MAYO is the Thomas S.

Murphy Senior Lecturer of Business Administration in the Organizational Behavior unit of Harvard Business School. JOSHUA D. MARGOLIS is the James Dinan and Elizabeth Miller Professor of Business Administration and the head of the Organizational Behavior unit at HBS. AMY GALLO is a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review and the author of the HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict. What rating should Nisha give Ben, and what should she tell him? Experience 6 Harvard Business Review January–February 2020 This document is authorized for use only by Marneze Antoine Davis in Contemp Challenges in Business-Winter 2025 at Walden University (Canvas), 2025.

Paper for above instructions

DATE: [Insert Date]

TO: Principal Decision Maker, Ness Entertainment

FROM: [Student Name]

RE: Analysis of Peer Rating, Accountability, and Team Performance

Background of the Problem

This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions. This case study analysis examines the complex interpersonal and organizational dynamics presented in the HBR case 'Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants?' focusing on performance feedback, professionalism, ethical decision-making, and workplace accountability. By addressing the background of the problem, key supporting factors, recommendations, goals, action items, action plans, and metrics for continuous improvement, the analysis provides a comprehensive framework for guiding the principal decision maker toward evidence-based solutions.

Key Factors Supporting Recommendations

• Accountability gaps within the Innovation Board teamwork structure.
• Workload imbalance and unrealistic project expectations.
• Organizational culture encouraging peer feedback inconsistently applied.
• Ethical considerations surrounding performance evaluations.
• Impact of social relationships on professional decision-making.

Recommendations

1. Implement structured peer feedback guidelines requiring transparency and accountability.
2. Redesign project delegation processes to ensure balanced workload distribution.
3. Provide training on ethical rating practices and conflict resolution.
4. Establish formal check-in systems during cross-functional assignments.
5. Encourage a culture of performance honesty without fear of retaliation.

Goal(s)

• Ensure fair, accurate, and ethical performance evaluations.
• Increase teamwork reliability and trust within Innovation Board teams.
• Strengthen organizational culture promoting accountability and transparency.
• Improve project delivery timelines and team cohesion.

Action Items

• Create a standardized peer feedback rubric.
• Train managers and team members on ethical evaluation.
• Develop workload monitoring tools for cross-functional assignments.
• Establish periodic performance check-ins during team collaborations.

Action Plans

Each action item will be executed through structured steps involving HR, project managers, and team leads. Training sessions will occur quarterly, workload tools will be implemented through the PM software, and feedback cycles will be integrated into existing performance systems. Challenges such as cultural resistance will be mitigated through leadership modeling and clear communication.

Metrics to Support Learning and Continuous Improvement

Success will be measured using KPIs such as project completion rates, peer evaluation accuracy scores, employee satisfaction surveys, reduction in unresolved conflicts, and consistency of peer rating distributions. Continuous improvement cycles will occur biannually.

References

Gallo, A. (2020). Give Your Colleague the Rating He Deserves—or the One He Wants? Harvard Business Review.
Margolis, J., & Mayo, A. (2019). Ramesh Patel at Aragon Entertainment Limited. Harvard Business School Case.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Jossey-Bass.
Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization. Wiley.
Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take. Penguin.
Cialdini, R. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (2005). The Wisdom of Teams. HarperBusiness.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. Random House.
Stone, D., Heen, S., & Patton, B. (2010). Difficult Conversations. Penguin.
Harvard Business Publishing. (2020). Peer Feedback Best Practices.