Task

You are assigned one of four case dossiers by lot. Each dossier describes a concrete, well-documented leadership situation and assigns a theoretical lens. You select the second lens yourself from the theories discussed in the course.

Your task is to analyze the situation through both lenses and show (a) what each theory reveals about the situation, (b) what each theory misses that the other captures, and (c) how combining both lenses produces a richer understanding than either alone.

The presentation must take between 8 and 10 minutes (strictly enforced). It is followed by a 15-minute examination dialogue with the examiner, in which you demonstrate that you understand the theories and that the analysis is your own.

The Core Idea

Complex situations require multiple mental models (latticework). The assignment places weight on understanding and transfer: you have to be able to explain the theories without your slides, apply them to changed circumstances, and justify each analytical claim with evidence from the dossier.

Cases

You are assigned one of the following cases by lot. Each dossier contains the situation, a timeline, the key actors, the sources, and one theoretical lens.

Case	Leader	Situation	Lens
A	Sam Altman, OpenAI	Removal and return of the CEO (Nov 2023)	Social Capital Theory
B	George Kurtz, CrowdStrike	Global IT outage and crisis response (Jul 2024)	Stakeholder Salience Theory
C	Tobi Lütke, Shopify	“Reflexive AI usage” memo (Apr 2025)	Self-Determination Theory
D	Herbert Diess, Volkswagen	Transformation, labor conflict, and dismissal (2021–2022)	Sources of Power & Organizational Politics

The allocation is announced via mail (see schedule). The dossier defines the situation. You may consult additional sources, but the analysis must be anchored in the facts documented in the dossier, and every additional source must be cited.

Second Lens

You choose a second lens yourself. It must

stem from the course (Units 1–8),
differ from the assigned lens and come from a different unit than the assigned one,
illuminate a different aspect of the situation than the assigned lens (e.g., the leader’s cognition or motivation vs. relational or structural dynamics).

Choose the second lens so that it complements or productively tensions with the assigned Lens B. Selecting a theory that essentially says the same as Lens B from a slightly different angle weakens the integration.

Dual-Lens Analysis

A good dual-lens analysis goes beyond applying two theories side by side. It demonstrates genuine integration:

Each theory is precisely introduced: key constructs, mechanisms, and boundary conditions, not just a label.
Each theory is applied analytically: explaining why the leader behaved as they did and what followed, not merely describing what happened using theoretical vocabulary.
Each analytical claim is backed by evidence from the dossier (events, statements, decisions).
The analysis reveals what each lens captures and what it misses.
The two lenses complement or productively tension each other.
The conclusions are grounded in the combined analysis: not generic leadership advice, but specific insights that only emerge from the dual-lens approach.

Time Allocation

Situation portrait ~2 min
Lens A (introduction & application) ~3 min
Lens B (introduction & application) ~3 min
Integration & conclusions ~2 min

Since the situation is predefined and known to the examiner, keep the portrait short and focus on what is needed to follow your analysis.

Examination Dialogue

Structure

The presentation is followed by a 15-minute dialogue with the examiner, consisting of four parts:

Theory probe ~4 min: explain the key constructs, mechanisms, and boundary conditions of both lenses without your slides.
Variation ~4 min: the examiner changes one parameter of the situation (e.g., an actor behaves differently, a condition does not hold). You derive what your lenses predict under the changed conditions.
Cold lens ~5 min: a further course theory is drawn at random. After one minute of preparation, you apply it to your case and relate it to your two lenses.
Evidence check ~2 min: the examiner points to a claim on your slides. You explain which facts from the dossier support it and how you derived it.

The dialogue replaces the challenger role of the regular assessment. The cold lens takes up its core idea: thinking on the spot with theories you have not prepared for this specific case.

Cold Lens Pool

The cold lens is drawn from the theories discussed in the course, excluding your Lens A and Lens B:

Trait approaches & Big Five
Behavioral theories (Ohio State / Michigan)
Contingency Model (Fiedler)
Situational Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Complexity Leadership Theory
Adaptive Leadership
Competing Values Framework
Innovation Leadership (creative abrasion, resolution, agility)
Path-Goal Theory
Expectancy Theory
Self-Determination Theory
Engaging Leadership

Team development (Tuckman / Wheelan)
Psychological Safety
Categorization-Elaboration Model
Swift Trust / Media Richness
Sources of Power & Organizational Politics
Conflict styles (Thomas-Kilmann) & escalation (Glasl)
Task vs. relationship conflict
Social Capital Theory
Stakeholder Salience Theory
Cultural dimensions (Hofstede / GLOBE)
Authentic / Servant Leadership
Organizational Trust

Submission

Submit your presentation slides (.pptx) via Email until the deadline.
Use the following naming scheme: DL_WT26_Re-Exam_Surname-Name
You will present the slides uploaded to Moodle (no late updates).
For the deadline and the presentation dates, please see the schedule.

Grading

Presentation (40%)

An excellent presentation has the following characteristics:

The situation is portrayed concisely and accurately, based on the dossier. (Situation portrait)
Both theories are precisely introduced, key constructs and mechanisms are explained based on scientific literature, not just named. (Theoretical precision)
Both theories are applied to explain why the leader behaved as they did and what followed, with claims backed by evidence. (Analytical depth)
The analysis reveals what each lens captures and misses and shows how combining both produces richer understanding. (Integration)
Insights flow logically from the dual-lens analysis and are specific, not generic. (Conclusions)
The presenter communicates clearly, uses visual aids effectively, and stays within time (8–10 min). (Delivery)

Examination Dialogue (60%)

An excellent performance in the dialogue has the following characteristics:

Both lenses are explained precisely and confidently without slides, including their boundary conditions. (Theoretical understanding)
Changed conditions are analyzed consistently with the theories, leading to plausible, reasoned predictions. (Transfer)
The randomly drawn theory is applied meaningfully to the case and related to the two lenses. (Breadth)
Claims are traced back to specific evidence, and the reasoning behind them is made transparent. (Evidence & ownership)

Minimum Requirement

If you cannot explain the key constructs of your own two lenses in the theory probe, the assessment is graded as failed (5.0), irrespective of the quality of the slides.

Formal Requirements

Compliance with formal requirements and good scientific practice are critical pass criteria, meaning that in case of non-compliance the exam is automatically failed (e.g., plagiarism, even light forms).

A Note on Grades

Grade	Meaning
`1`: very good	A truly outstanding achievement that (not only) shows no deficiencies in the criteria mentioned, but also gives both the supervisor and external assessors an excellent impression.
`2`: good	Work that exceeds the average requirements/performance and is easily recognizable and presentable to the outside world as a “good performance”.
Note	2.5 is the average of passed assessments, i.e., an “average performance”
`3`: satisfactory	A performance that achieves the desired goal “to a satisfactory extent”; however, deficiencies can be identified here and there.
`4`: sufficient	A performance that “still adequately satisfies” the requirements, but deviates from the expectations placed on it in several ways.
`5`: not sufficient	A performance that does not meet several of the criteria mentioned.

Literature Search

For your theoretical foundations, I recommend using Web of Science or Google Scholar. Each dossier lists key references for Lens B as a starting point.

Use the citation count as primary quality indicator.
Follow the conversation: start with early, introductory papers, then read more recent ones.
Look for literature reviews that summarize the current state of knowledge.
For recent empirical evidence, look for papers that apply the theory.