This paper is about analyzing the case of “Jensen Shoes: Jane Kravitzs”, and it focuses on one very important thing that almost all essays that are done on this Case Study fail to mention.
The case “Jensen Shoes: Jane Kravitzs” has one specific thing, which is stating that the story was told from memory by Jane Kravitz. This is very important information and because of this, we can assume that the story may not be 100 percent accurate, and may also contain a slight bias since we are only given Jane’s perspective. As will be pointed out in the following section, each individual’s perception will have a major influence on the attitudes and behaviors exhibited throughout this case. The problem begins when Chuck Taylor, who is the Director of Strategic Marketing, provides negative information to Jane about one of her new staff members Lyndon Brooks by stating that he had not received very good performance reviews over the last three years that he had been with the company. Despite the fact Jane had worked with Lyndon in the past claiming that he was a very charming African-American businessman who had a way about him that suggested he could be a star if given the right situation and motivation, Chuck’s negative comments about Lyndon influence her thought process regarding Lyndon stability to perform well and meet expectations. This corresponds to the social information processing model; in which ³people adopt attitudes and behaviors in keeping with the cues provided by others with whom they come into contact. As a result of Chuck’s negative comments, Jane develops a lack of confidence in Lyndon’s performance indicated by her constant monitoring of his progress leading him to uphold the golem effect, in which people holding low expectations of another tend to lower that individual’s performance.
