Read the following scenario and follow the instructions (choose two of the options that best fit what you think the focal individual, Abrams, should do). Write your rationale for the decisions youve made and the consequences for the people involved and the likelihood that they will meet the deadline because of your decisions. Consider the scenario in terms of the Abilene paradox, as well as any decision biases you may have relied upon to make your decisions. Moss is a researcher in the laboratory of Dr. Abrams, a well-known researcher in the field of economics. Moss is trying to develop a model to predict performance of stocks in the technology sector, but she is having difficulty analyzing and selecting trends to include in the model. She enlists the help of Reynolds, another experiences researcher working on a similar topic. With Reynoldss help, Moss eventually analyzes and identifies some key trends working them into a testable model. She also discusses some of her other research ideas with Reynolds. Two weeks later, Moss comes across a grant proposal developed by Reynolds and Abrams. She sees that it includes ideas very similar to those she discussed with Reynolds. She takes the matter to Abrams, who declines to get involved, saying that the two researchers should work it out on their own. Reynolds admits to Abrams that he used slightly modified versions of Mosss ideas, an admission that she had purposefully omitted the intellectual contributions of Moss, a form of plagiarism. Abrams is upset with this, but Reynolds is a key person on the proposal team and the grant application deadline is soon. The grant is for a substantial amount and to be eligible for it the proposal must be submitted prior to the deadline, and receiving the grant is considered prestigious in the field. What should Abrams do? Choose two of the following: a) Fire Reynolds from the lab on the grounds of academic misconduct b) Leave Reynolds as first author on the proposal since he wrote up the ideas c) Remove Reynolds from the proposal team, and offer Moss the position if she allows her ideas to be used d) Ask Moss to join the grant team, placing her as third author on the proposal if she allows her ideas to be used e) Acknowledge Moss in the grant proposal because the ideas were hers originally f) Apologize to Moss and indicate that the proposal must go out as is to meet the deadline g) Remove Mosss ideas from the proposal and try to rework it before the deadline The scenario has been adapted from the research of Michael Mumford and colleagues. Mumford, M.D., Waples, E.P., Antes, A.L., Brown, R.P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S.T., and Devenport, L.D. (2010). Creativity and ethics: The relationship of creativity and ethical problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1): 74-89.
one page , 3 referance
2. What is the relationship between national culture and innovation? Do countries have the same opportunities to generate innovations? Answer from one of the following perspectives: A) Consider the story of Robert Noyce and Silicon Valley in the American Experience episode. He is considered the originator of the Silicon Valley ethos and therefore much of the modern American entrepreneurial and innovation culture, and this may not have occurred if not for the miraculous happenstance that Noyce had access to transistor technology when he did, and where he was in school. What is the likelihood that this would happen to other countries Robert Noyces? And would these Noyces be able to eventually create his/her own countrys Silicon Valley? For example, would this happen in China, given what Kao posits, and what Abrami and her co-authors argue? How about India? Russia? Malaysia? Discuss using more than just personal opinion. Pick one country and state your position using credible research citations. B) Discuss reverse engineering, as discussed by Winter and Govindarajan, in relation to disruptive innovation theory. Explain, using at least three citations, why western corporations should pursue the strategy of reverse engineering for developing markets to avoid being disrupted.
<
