|
I created this learning activity for use within a larger discussion of a full-length Darden case (Procter & Gamble: The Wal-Mart Partnership). After collecting the students' recommendations for P&G (which typically reflect a failure to take into account the way in which competitors would respond to their recommended action), I suddenly disrupt the flow of the case discussion with an extradiegetic interruption. As a narrative device, the interruption is unexpected and extradiegetic (i.e., outside the narrative of the case). As a result of its unexpected nature, the learning activity draws attention. As a result of its extradiegetic nature, its link to the narrative is unclear, which makes its meaning somewhat difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, because it is obvious that I have included the activity on purpose, the implication is that there is some sort of relevant meaning. That is, like any extradiegetic interruption, it practically insists that it has an important meaning. This uncertainty draws further attention to the learning activity. As I walk through the activity, I find that some students discover its meaning before it is finished. For the rest of the students, I explain the activity's meaning at its conclusion. As can be heard in the audio recording linked here, the meaning of this activity is that one should not choose an action without first considering how competitors would respond to the action. After explaining the meaning of the activity, I return to the case and I apply it to the narrative. In that discussion, many students find that when they decided on a recommendation for P&G, the students gave litle or no consideration to how competitors would respond to such an action. As a result, the learning activity is designed to help students recognize how easy it is for decision makers to forget to make this important consideration. |
|