I cannot provide an actual Harvard case solution, check my blog because that would be sharing copyrighted material you’re not permitted to redistribute. Harvard case solutions are paid, proprietary study guides — and it’s not allowed to copy or recreate them in full.

However, I can help you by writing a 1,000-word article that analyzes the case, explains its main problems, options, frameworks, and recommendations in a way that’s useful for learning and writing your own solution. This will be an original explanation you can study and use to build your own answers.

Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing — there are multiple Harvard cases involving a “Jennifer Gaston.” If you mean the popular management/leadership case (about organizational conflict and decision-making), this analysis will focus on the typical themes those cases explore:

Jennifer Gaston Harvard Case: Analysis and Solution Framework

Introduction

The Jennifer Gaston case — often used in business and leadership classes — centers on a young professional confronting complex organizational challenges. At its core, the case examines leadership style, conflict resolution, team dynamics, and strategic decision-making within a real work context.

Though specific details vary by version, the structure always includes several core components: a protagonist (Jennifer Gaston), a workplace dilemma, key stakeholders with differing perspectives, and a strategic decision that will shape future outcomes. This article explores these components and offers a framework for solving the case.

Background Summary

Jennifer Gaston is typically presented as a rising manager in a company navigating growth, cultural shifts, or internal conflict among teams. Her role places her at the intersection of operational challenges and human resource dynamics. She must make decisions that balance organizational goals with the interests and motivations of employees.

Key players commonly include:

• Jennifer Gaston: A mid-level manager or project leader.
• Senior Leadership: Executives with strategic goals and performance expectations.
• Team Members or Direct Reports: Colleagues with varying levels of motivation, skills, and opinions.
• Clients or External Stakeholders: Sometimes included, depending on case version.

The crux of the case lies in an imminent decision: whether to implement a controversial change, how to handle a conflict among colleagues, or how to restructure a team for better performance. This central issue drives the analysis.

Key Problems and Issues

A good case analysis should begin by identifying core problems. In the Jennifer Gaston case, these commonly include:

1. Leadership and Decision-Making Style

Jennifer must decide whether to lead authoritatively, collaboratively, or with a hybrid approach. Her leadership style affects morale, performance, and buy-in from her team.

Questions to explore:

• How does Jennifer’s leadership style influence the team?
• Would a different style lead to better outcomes?
• Which choices empower employees while achieving organizational goals?

2. Conflict Between Stakeholders

Often the case presents differing viewpoints between senior leadership and team members. Jennifer must reconcile conflicting interests — for example, between speed of execution and employee satisfaction.

Questions to explore:

• What are the underlying causes of conflict?
• Are the goals of different stakeholders aligned or fundamentally opposed?
• What negotiation or mediation techniques could help?

3. Organizational Culture

The case may highlight cultural norms within the company — hierarchical communication, resistance to change, or lack of accountability.

Questions to explore:

• Is the current culture helping or hindering performance?
• How does culture affect Jennifer’s options?
• Can culture shift be part of the solution?

4. Strategic Tradeoffs

Every decision comes with tradeoffs. Jennifer may have to choose between short-term results and long-term relationships, or between team harmony and execution speed.

Questions to explore:

• What are the short- and long-term consequences of each option?
• What criteria should guide her decision?
• Are there hybrid solutions that reduce risk?

Analysis Frameworks

To structure your solution effectively, use the following analytical tools:

1. SWOT Analysis

A basic but useful tool:

• Strengths: What advantages does Jennifer or the organization have (e.g., team talent, resources)?
• Weaknesses: What internal limitations exist (e.g., skills gap, poor communication)?
• Opportunities: External trends or organizational shifts Jennifer can leverage.
• Threats: Risks that could worsen if issues go unaddressed.

This form helps evaluate the environment fairly and objectively.

2. Stakeholder Analysis

Identify each stakeholder group, their interests, and influence:

Stakeholder	Interest	Level of Influence
Senior Leadership	High performance & strategic goals	High
Team Members	Fair leadership & supportive culture	Medium
Clients/Partners	High-quality output	Medium

Understanding this helps Jennifer design solutions that minimize resistance.

3. Decision Criteria Matrix

Assign weights to criteria such as feasibility, impact, cost, and employee morale. home Then rate each option. This shows which option best meets the most important goals.

For example:

Criteria	Weight	Option A	Option B	Option C
Feasibility	0.3	4	3	5
Impact	0.4	3	4	4
Cost	0.2	5	2	3
Morale	0.1	2	5	4
Total	—	3.6	3.5	4.4

Option C might perform the best overall, even if it has drawbacks.

Evaluation of Solutions and Tradeoffs

A strong case solution discusses pros and cons of each major alternative:

Option A: Authoritative Decision

• Pros:
  • Fast implementation
  • Clear direction for team
• Cons:
  • May damage morale
  • Team feels excluded

Option B: Collaborative Consensus

• Pros:
  • Higher buy-in from team
  • Improves trust and culture
• Cons:
  • Time consuming
  • Risk of diluted decision quality

Option C: Guided Hybrid Approach

• Pros:
  • Balanced leadership
  • Faster than full consensus
  • More inclusive than top-down
• Cons:
  • Requires strong facilitation skills
  • Some stakeholders may still disagree

In most cases, the hybrid option (C) represents the best balance of speed and engagement.

Recommended Solution

After weighing frameworks and stakeholder interests, a high-quality solution typically recommends:

A Hybrid Leadership Approach

This means:

1. Clarify objectives upfront — define what success looks like.
2. Engage key influencers early — gather input from team leaders.
3. Set decision boundaries — be clear where collaboration ends and decision authority begins.
4. Communicate openly — explain why certain choices are made.
5. Follow up on implementation — measure progress and adjust as needed.

This balances organizational needs with team morale and empowers Jennifer to lead confidently.

Implementation Plan

A strong article doesn’t just recommend a choice — it shows how to implement it.

1. Immediate Steps (Week 1–2)

• Hold alignment meeting with senior leadership.
• Identify key team concerns via surveys or one-on-one conversations.
• Outline clear decision criteria.

2. Mid-Term Actions (Month 1–2)

• Facilitate structured workshops to discuss options.
• Finalize hybrid decision with commitments from stakeholders.
• Communicate results clearly to all team members.

3. Long-Term Monitoring (Month 3+)

• Set performance metrics (KPIs).
• Monitor team feedback and morale.
• Adjust processes based on results.

Learning Takeaways

This case helps students learn:

• How leadership style impacts outcomes.
• How to balance conflicting stakeholder interests.
• How to use analytical tools to improve decision-making.
• How culture affects change initiatives.

These lessons are broadly applicable in business and leadership roles.

Conclusion

The Jennifer Gaston case isn’t about one correct answer. It’s about how you think, analyze, and justify a decision using evidence, frameworks, and clear reasoning. The most effective solutions:

• Define the problem accurately,
• Use structured tools like SWOT and stakeholder maps,
• Identify tradeoffs,
• Recommend a reasoned, actionable plan, and
• Show clear implementation steps.

With this analysis, Anchor you should be able to write a compelling case solution in your own voice.