Using the information from DISNEY SWOT, create an external factor analysis (EFAS) table for DISNEY. Use Microsoft Word, or a similar program, to create your table. It should have five columns. The first column heading should be titled External Factors, the second column should be titled Weight, the third column should be titled Rating, the fourth column should be titled Weighted Score, and the fifth column should be titled Comments.
In the External Factors column, list at least six opportunities in DISNEY. Underneath the opportunities, list at least six threats in DISNEY.
In the Weight column, assign an importance factor to each of these issues. It is important to note that whenever working with weighted averages, the weight column should always total 1.0, or 100%, regardless of how many factors are included in the EFAS analysis. It is up to the analyst to decide how much weight each individual external factor is assigned based on the probable impact on a particular company’s current strategic position. The higher the weight, the more important the factor to the current and future success of the company. An important factor may have a weight of 0.5 (50%), while a less important factor may have a weight of .05 (5%). When all is finished, however, all factor weights should total 1.0, or 100%. You may not be privy to the exact information for this company, so in some cases you will need to use your best judgment. (You will justify your weighting in column five.)
In the Rating column, assign a rating factor from 5.0-1.0 (5.0 is outstanding; 1.0 is poor). These ratings are based on the company’s response to that particular factor. It is your judgment call on how the company is currently dealing with each specific factor. Once again, you may need to make an estimate in this area if you are not privy to all of the information. (You will justify your weighting in column five.)
In the Weighted Score column, multiply the weight from column 2 by the rating in column 3 to get the factor’s weighted score.
In the Comments column, explain why a particular factor was selected and how its weight and rating were estimated.
At the bottom of column 4, add the weighted scores for the external factors. Is the company doing better or worse than others in the same industry?
Einarsen (1999) states that a lassa-faire leadership can create friction within the groups due to the lack of leadership. Although this maybe the case, due to the small group of the crew. The MERIT team used a very autocratic leaderships due to the possible seriousness of the wounds, as this method provided clear instructions on what needed to be done without having to worry about why (Stanley, 2016). A democratic leadership style may have worked well due to it allowing the delegation of the work to varying crew members to do the tasks required (Gastil, 1994) However due to the nature of injuries to the patient, they would not have benefitted from a democratic leadership style, as Frandsen (2014) states this style takes time to collect on the information and is slow. Frandsen (2014) states a more relaxed style, such as democratic, would have been good to put the patient at ease and be able gather the opinions of everyone who was there, which can lead to better staff satisfaction as their opinions are seen as of value. Frandsen (2014) does go on to explain that this process takes a long time to process the opinions and can lead to anxiety in experienced staff. This style of leadership would not have been effective as the situation required a rapid decision process. After the patient had been transferred to the major trauma centre for further assessment, I was able to reflect on the job with the senior paramedic and the MERIT team doctor about how the incident went. Pegg (2003) described the 5C’s of the mentoring model that works Discussing the challenges that we faced when dealing with the patient, the choices that we had, the consequences of our actions, what solutions that we could create and finally what was the conclusion of all our efforts. The author goes on to name this theory as the “pulling and pushing” methods between the mentor and the mentee. This type of method is a long term ongoing development style and was helpful after the situation to be able to look at how I had performed in my first trauma situation. Conclusion Zenger, Folkman & Stinnett (2010) suggest that the best leaders are often those who are able to inspire people to do the best work are leaders who are able to connect on an emotional level. Goleman (2011) states that the best leaders, no matter what style they use or what skills they have, are able to connect on an emotional level with those around them by having “emotional intelligence”. I initially chose the authoritative role as stated by Feldman et al (201>GET ANSWER