Don't ask AI to make the decision. Use it to make your reasoning better.

You are a management coach helping an undergraduate business student think through a workplace situation. Do not give me the answer right away. Walk me through these steps one at a time, asking me questions and waiting for my reply before moving on: 1. Facts: What do we actually know? Separate observations from assumptions. 2. Stakeholders: Who is affected, and what does each want? 3. Management concepts: Which ideas from a management theory course apply (for example span of control, equity theory, decision biases, the four ethical lenses)? Explain each in one sentence. 4. Alternative explanations: Give at least two other ways to explain what is happening. 5. Options: List three or more realistic actions I could take. 6. Consequences: For each option, what is likely to happen, short term and long term? 7. Questions to investigate: What should I find out before acting? My situation (no real names): [DESCRIBE IT HERE]

Explain the management concept [CONCEPT] to me like I am a new supervisor, in this format: - A 30-second explanation in plain language - One example from the [YOUR INDUSTRY OR JOB] industry - The question a manager should ask when using it - The most common mistake people make with it - Where the theory stops working (its limits) Then give me one short application question. Wait for my answer, and tell me what I got right and what I missed.

Act as a leadership coach. I am preparing for this leadership situation: [DESCRIBE IT, NO REAL NAMES]. Ask me up to five questions to understand the people involved, the stakes, and my role. Then: 1. Identify which leadership approaches (directive, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented, or others) fit this situation and why. 2. Point out what I might be overlooking. 3. Help me draft the first two minutes of what I will say. Challenge my assumptions instead of agreeing with me.

Help me diagnose a motivation problem. The situation: [DESCRIBE THE PERSON'S ROLE AND WHAT YOU OBSERVE, NO NAMES]. Analyze it through these lenses, one at a time: - Expectancy theory: Does the person believe effort leads to performance, and performance to a reward they value? - Equity theory: What might they be comparing themselves to? - Goal setting: Are their goals clear and challenging? - The DART model: Is the problem direction, fit, reward, or development? Tell me which explanation the evidence supports best, what evidence is missing, and two questions I should ask the person directly.

Help me analyze an ethical decision at work: [DESCRIBE THE DECISION]. 1. List the stakeholders and what each gains or loses. 2. Apply four lenses separately: utility (greatest good), rights (what is owed to each person), justice (fair distribution of benefits and burdens), and virtue (what a manager of good character would do). 3. Show where the lenses agree and where they conflict. 4. Apply the publicity test and the reversibility test. 5. Do not decide for me. Ask me which trade-off I am willing to accept and why, then point out the strongest objection to my choice.

I have a conflict with a coworker or classmate: [DESCRIBE IT, NO REAL NAMES]. Help me: 1. Separate the task conflict (about the work) from relationship conflict (about each other). 2. Identify what each of us likely cares about underneath our positions. 3. Suggest an opening line for the conversation that does not put the other person on the defensive. 4. Role-play the conversation: you play the other person realistically, including pushing back. Stop after five exchanges and give me feedback on how I did.

Act as a team effectiveness consultant. My team: [SIZE, PURPOSE, DEADLINE, WHAT IS GOING WRONG; NO NAMES]. Ask me questions about goals, roles, norms, communication, and accountability. Then tell me: - Which stage of team development we appear to be in - Whether the problem is goals, roles, process, or relationships - Whether anyone may be social loafing and how to make contributions visible - Three specific things to do at our next meeting Keep it practical; we meet again in two days.

I am about to make this decision: [DESCRIBE THE DECISION AND YOUR CURRENT CHOICE]. Act as a skeptical advisor. Check my reasoning for these biases and explain any you find in my case: anchoring, confirmation bias, overconfidence, escalation of commitment (sunk costs), availability, and groupthink. Then: 1. Argue the strongest case against my choice. 2. Ask: If I were starting fresh today, would I still choose this? 3. Tell me what one piece of evidence would most change the decision.

Help me prepare feedback for someone: [DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED, NO NAMES]. 1. Rewrite my description so it describes observable behavior, not my interpretation or the person's character. 2. Put it in Situation, Behavior, Impact, Request format. 3. Predict two ways the person might react and how I can respond to each. 4. Point out anything in my draft that sounds like blame or that could be biased.

Act as an interviewer for this role: [JOB TITLE AND A FEW LINES FROM THE POSTING]. Ask me five structured, job-related questions one at a time (mix behavioral "tell me about a time" and situational "what would you do" questions). After each answer, score it 1 to 5 on specificity, relevance, and results, and suggest one improvement. At the end, give me the realistic downsides of this kind of job that I should ask about.

I analyzed a management case and reached this recommendation: [PASTE YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND THE THEORIES YOU USED]. Act as a demanding professor. Do not rewrite my analysis. Instead: 1. Ask the three hardest questions a reviewer would ask. 2. Identify a theory I did not use that might change the conclusion. 3. Point out any claim I made without evidence. After I respond, tell me whether my recommendation got stronger or weaker.