Are you pressed for time and haven’t started working on your assignment yet? Would you like to buy an assignment? Use our custom writing services for better grades. Even if your deadline is approaching fast, our writers can handle your task right when you need it. Our writers will complete your order from scratch and make sure it’s completely unique.
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Use the knowledge learned to analyze the case, use Chicago 17 format, at least 16 reference lists.
MT2000 Assessment Three
Assessment 3 is an individual report based on comprehensive analysis of a case study.
A case study is based on a real event (or construction of event that could take place) in an organisation. Usually, the main character (or characters) is facing a problem, challenge or opportunity. Case studies are useful for applying what you learn to real world situations.
The case study for this assessment is
Not As Easy as 1,2,3 and available on BB in Assessment 3 folder.
This assessment has two parts:
1. Facilitation | Group |20%
2. Report | Individual | 30%
1. Facilitation | Group | 25 minutes |worth 20%
Students will be allocated into groups and able to select an organisational behaviour’ topic/theme. Using the case study, textbook and additional sources, your group is to deliver a 25 minute
facilitation during the workshop. The ‘theme’ will correspond with the weekly topic. Remember that this is a facilitation – not a presentation – innovative facilitation techniques will be discussed in the workshops. Students will be aware of the case study, so you do not need to re-tell the case study as part of the presentation.
The facilitation should outline:
· A theory (or theories) linked to the topic area, explaining the theory and relevance to the case.
· Outline other situations when this topic might relate to the workplace, drawing on your team’s own work experiences
· Suggestions for how work situations might be better managed in light of the theories.
The facilitations will cover the following topics/themes:
· Decision Making
· Conflict & Negotiation
· Leadership in organisational settings
Students need to participate in this formative activity to be able to complete the report.
You are required to complete a self and peer-assessment form and email to your tutor on the day of your facilitation. The self and peer assessment form can be accessed on BB under the assessments tab. Please note that this form is not marked but important for ensuring fairness in marks provided to group members.
Report| Individual | 30%: Your assessment will be a 3000 word written report that includes the following:
Part A: Case study analysis
A comprehensive critical analysis of the case study, incorporating any
3 topics/ themes, with help of relevant OB concepts and research, should be provided. Please note that you need to identify important issues, as related to the
3 topics/themes chosen, and offer recommendations to solve the problems based on relevant OB concepts, theories and research and not restrict yourself to your facilitation topic only. As such, you are strongly recommended to attend all facilitations by all groups as this would help you to produce a more comprehensive analysis of the case study by integrating various topics in your report. You will use a mix of scholarly and practitioner journal articles to analyse the main problems and offer recommendations to the problems. (2000 words)
PART B: Critical refection on team processes using OB theories
B1. You will reflect on and critically evaluate your group dynamics using either ‘Tuckman’s Model’ or ‘Punctuated Equilibrium Model’ of team development. (500 words)
B2. You will reflect on and critically evaluate your own performance and contribution to the case study analysis process within the group using the concept of ‘team roles’. This will provide you an opportunity to reflect on your role in the team. (500 words)
The report should cite at least twelve peer-reviewed journal articles in addition to the textbook and other non-scholarly resources to get a high grade.
You should use Chicago 17B referencing style for this report. Please note that both Part A and Part B need to be supported by OB theories and research with appropriate citations.
A task sheet has been provided as a guide to the expected content and structure.
You will submit your report via a Turnitin submission link that will be provided to you closer to the individual report submission due date.
Case study: Not As Easy AS 123
BY KOHYAR KIAZAD, MONASH UNIVERSITY
George, a graduate consultant at ABC Consulting, sat nervously outside his manager’s office thinking how to quit. He had joined the company only three months earlier, never thinking things would deteriorate so quickly. Looking at his watch, which read 11.07 am, he reflected on why he took the job in the first place and why he was quitting so soon.
Having completed an MBA, George was excited about stepping into ‘the real world’ and becoming a management consultant. He had two offers; one from a Big 4 organisation and the other from ABC Consulting, a medium-sized company. The Big 4 organisation offered a better salary and exposure to big-name clients and multimillion-dollar projects. However, George assumed that consultants in larger organisations worked extremely long hours, in conflict-ridden environments, and under the ‘kiss up, kick down’ management style. Money was important to George, but more important was a work–life balance, the freedom to be creative and having supportive and collaborative colleagues. In the end, George chose ABC Consulting because he believed that the company’s espoused values matched what he wanted.
George’s first day began with a meeting involving the HR director and Janet, his area manager. ‘We’re excited to have you here, George’, Janet said. ‘Your interview was impressive; you’re exactly the sort of person we’re looking for!’ ‘We don’t offer big salaries’, the HR director added, ‘but you’ll be eligible for our bonus system after three months’. The company offered a 10% annual bonus to all confirmed employees. ‘To be clear, you’ll be eligible upon successful completion of your three-month probation, but that’s just a formality, everyone gets onto the bonus system after three months’, the HR Director said reassuringly. George sensed the target was easily achievable.
‘As you know’, George said, ‘it’s not the money that attracted me, I’m mostly looking forward to working with good people on interesting projects’. ‘Well, that’s what differentiates us from other firms’, Janet replied. ‘Clients like us because we deliver creativity and innovation. Our projects involve lots of collaboration and thinking outside the box. Most of your time will be spent in brainstorming meetings where you can dazzle us with your genius!’ Janet said with a smile. This was exactly the environment George was seeking. He sensed he would have long future with the company.
The office dynamics
The first week at work was very exciting. George was asked to interact with his colleagues at office while the management decided on a project to assign him. George was very impressed by how much experience the other office colleagues had; most of them had been working together for a long time and they knew each other very well. However, George soon found it was difficult to introduce or suggest new ideas to his colleagues as they were very experienced and cohesive in their approach to deal with problems.
Despite his growing anxiety about the office culture, George persisted in suggesting new ideas. But soon, one of the office colleagues, Harry Main, asked George to have a one-on-one talk after an office meeting. In a calm but very firm voice, Harry said: ‘George, I am sorry to say, but you have to integrate yourself more into the culture. Most of the office members have been working together for many years now, we are very used to each other, and we expect cohesive consensus. We have so much experience, and we are experts in this field, so we just expect you to listen carefully. Otherwise this will get very difficult for all of us.’
George was surprised and upset and kept thinking all weekend about what to do and how to react to Harry’s comments. His first job out of university was so important to him, and he remembered what he was promised in this role when he received his job offer. They had told him that he would work in a wonderful team, and would have ample opportunities to contribute creative and innovative ideas.
After this incident with Harry, George noticed something else in Harry’s behaviour towards another team member, Enrique Armo. George had overheard a conversation between the two. Harry had threatened to tell the head of human resources (HR) that Enrique sometimes leaves the office earlier, in response to urgent family issues. It was quite clear to George what that meant—the head of HR was the team’s disciplinary supervisor. The issue could cause a lot of trouble for Enrique if the head found out.
George was increasingly feeling more anxious and upset. He decided to tell his best friend Anna. ‘I don’t understand why Harry thinks he has authority over the team and can threaten Enrique’, George told her. ‘Harry is neither the supervisor, nor known for doing a good job or knowing a lot. And, I can’t believe he spoke to me, he is not my boss, nor the project leader. I am yet to be assigned a project in the first place!’
Anna just responded. ‘I know exactly what you are talking about’, she replied. ‘We have a similar situation in my workplace. A colleague of mine has been working in the same position for ages. She has just built herself a network of colleagues in the organisation which makes her so confident. She does not work hard, nor is she clever, but she tries to get involved in every decision. She speaks up at every team meeting and often talks to influential people in the cafeteria.’
‘We have to learn how we can respond to those situations’, Anna continues, ‘and even influence people at work with this dominating attitude and behaviour’.
George felt slightly reassured after talking to Anna. Moreover, he was looking forward to be assigned a project where he could prove that he was very capable.
George was quickly assigned to a project team, which also included Daniel, the project manager, and Janet, the client manager. George spent several nights reviewing the project brief and developed what he thought were fairly creative ideas that would impress Janet and Daniel. Over the next month, the team had collected a mountain of data, which would form the basis of their first client report. George was responsible for writing the report, due in less than a week. One afternoon, Daniel scheduled a team meeting to discuss the report. As the meeting began, George was taken aback by how quickly and easily Daniel and Janet were throwing ideas around and interpreting the vast amount of data they had. George suddenly thought he knew very little about the project and knew that soon they would expect him to say something. His heart began to pound. Sure enough, Janet turned to George, ‘What do you think, George?’ George felt a knot in his stomach. ‘Umm . . . ,’ his mind went blank as he flipped aimlessly through his notebook. Just say something! Anything! he thought to himself, ‘I just need some time to absorb all this stuff, I think’, he finally said. Daniel and Janet stared at him inquisitively. Janet finally broke the awkward moment, ‘Well, George, in consulting you need to think on your feet, you need to make sense of information very quickly. I guess we thought you were a little more extroverted.’ George sensed from Janet’s comment that she was disappointed.
With his review meeting approaching, George decided he would make amends with the client report. He saw it as a good opportunity to be creative and add his own ideas. He would be in the office by 7 am and not leave before 7 pm, and often continue working at home.
In the end, he completed what he thought was an excellent report, and emailed it to Janet and Daniel two nights before it was due.
As always, he was at the office first thing in the morning, and was surprised to see that Janet had already replied. What followed, however, came as a complete shock. Janet had gone through his report paragraph by paragraph, criticising everything, including all of his ideas. The report had been ripped to shreds. ‘Hopefully, we’ll have something useful to present on Monday’, her email concluded.
George spent the entire weekend revising the report, following precisely Janet’s comments. He removed all of his ideas since it was clear they were not valued.
On Monday morning George did not feel like going to work. He wanted to call in sick, but instead decided to sleep in and go in later than usual. Stuff them! he thought. Why should I work this hard when they treat me like this? A feeling of anger and resentment began to build up inside him. He decided that from then on, he would not do anything on the project unless instructed to. I’ll only do the absolute minimum, nothing more! he told himself.
Over the next few weeks, George’s enthusiasm for the job gradually diminished. He came to work later, left earlier than usual, and took increasingly longer breaks. He was no longer interested in ‘dazzling’ anyone. The thought of resigning crossed his mind, but so did the 10% bonus he was entitled to if he stayed.
On the day of the review meeting George was excited that he would finally go on the bonus system. He figured it would make up for all his work that had not been recognised. ‘Take a seat, George’, Janet said. Also present was the HR director. Immediately George sensed a colder and more serious ‘vibe’ compared to last time they met. George sensed that the feedback would be harsh.
‘You see, George,’ Janet began, ‘the problem is that you haven’t performed as well as we expected’. Janet continued: ‘Obviously the potential is there, but we don’t think you’ve performed at a level needed to get on the bonus system, so we’ll re-evaluate your performance again in three months and make a decision then.’
George was confused; his thoughts began to race. Potential? His mind flashed back to the meeting three months earlier, when Janet had remarked: ‘You’re exactly the sort of person we’re looking for!’ Moreover, the HR director had clearly said that everyone gets onto the bonus system after three months.
‘Any questions, George?’ asked the HR director. George suddenly realised he had not been listening for a while, but his mind was already made up. That night he began sending out job applications. He also emailed Janet with a request to meet at 11 am the following morning.
Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education (Australia) Pty Ltd
McShane, Olekalns, Newman, Travaglione,
Organisational Behaviour, 5e
Group 6 Leadership
Leadership is the ability to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute towards the effectiveness of the organisations of which they are members.
1. Who are the leaders in the case ？ what are their leadership styles？
Case 1: Janet finally broke the awkward moment, ‘Well, George, in consulting you need to think on your feet, you need to make sense of information very quickly. I guess we thought you were a little more extroverted.
Characteristic：people-oriented style, helps relieve embarrassment and shows concern for employees.
Case 2: “Daniel and Janet stared at him inquisitively. Janet finally broke the awkward moment”. Daniel is only in the case to specify the time and view the results collected by each member. No action was taken in the face of George’s awkward situation.
Characteristic：Task-oriented leadership, Only cares about the quality and performance of employees within a set time limit.
2. Does George exhibit any leadership traits/potential?
George has three leadership traits/potential：drive，self-concept and emotional intelligence
Drive：George has an intrinsic drive to pursue his goals，He says “it’s not the money that attracts him, It is interesting projects with great people.”（intrinsic motivation to pursue his goals)
Self-concept：George has a positive self-assessment of himself, believes he can work in a great team and will have ample opportunities to contribute creative and innovative ideas.
leadership potential：George has emotional intelligence, he knows how to self-regulate his emotions and understand.George felt upset and anxious because of something that happened in the company, so he went to her good friend Anna to talk to her.（reached self-regulation and understanding）
3. Using relevant theories, recommend how the leaders in the case can improve their
leadership skills further ？
Case 1: Janet had gone through his report paragraph by paragraph, criticising everything, including all of his ideas. The report had been ripped to shreds. ‘Hopefully, we’ll have something useful to present on Monday’, her email concluded.
Characteristic：Unstable emotional intelligence, Lack of integrity
Recommendation: Not Giving new employees a unreal vision, more communications with employees
Case 2: In a calm but very firm voice, Harry said: ‘George, I am sorry to say, but you have to integrate yourself more into the culture. Most of the office members have been working together for many years now, we are very used to each other, and we expect cohesive consensus. We have so much experience, and we are experts in this field, so we just expect you to listen carefully. Otherwise this will get very difficult for all of us.’
Characteristic：strong Personality, Integrity and Self-concept, but weak Emotional intelligence and Knowledge of business
Recommendation: Improve self-skills, go to a higher position, organize speeches to make people more acceptable
Question 1. Who are the powerful people in this company? And sources of power.
HR Director- Legitimate power, Reward power
Janet- Coercive power
Danie- Coercive power
Harry Main- Referent power, Expert power
Question 2. Recommend some ways for George to (1) increase his power and (2)deal with powerful colleagues in this case ?
Advice for the Case 1 :
(1) First of all, as a newcomer to the company, George shouldn’t be in a hurry to show himself. Although he has the expert power because he successfully passed the MBA program, he lacks the knowledge and experience of someone who has been doing this job for decades.
(2) George should first work with those experienced employees for a period of time, after accumulating enough relevant knowledge and work experience, his expert power will be improved, after that, George can start to put forward his own ideas gradually and his ideas will be more easily accepted by his colleagues.
Advice for the Case 2 :
(1) George was so eager to present himself at the beginning that the customer report he spent a lot of time writing was not necessarily a good customer report. George’s boss, Janet, exerts coercive energy on George and demands that he do exactly what she wants him to do. In this case, Janet should also make some changes. She could not force George to write the report according to her idea, or she could tell George how to promote himself instead of denying his report completely.
(2) George should have a self-reflection after being completely rejected by Janet. Although Janet insisted on his own idea and forced him to change it, if his report was good enough, even if he had different opinions, it should be able to make Janet accept part of George’s idea.
Advice for the Case 3 :
(1) Because his idea was not accepted by his boss Janet, George began to abandon himself, just for the bonus and muddle in the company, finally told that he could not get the bonus. First of all, as a new employee of the company, George should learn from those experienced old employees, which can enhance his expert energy. Secondly, when his report is denied, he should actively reflect on himself instead of giving up on himself. Only if he completes the work seriously and actively can he get the bonus.
(2) George should work hard to deserve the bonus, however, unfortunately, George, as a rookie, gave up on himself completely after some setbacks, which caused him to lose the reward Power.
How did others influence George
1. In a calm but very firm voice, Harry said: ‘George, I am sorry to say, but you have to integrate yourself more into the culture. Most of the office members have been working together for many years now, we are very used to each other, and we expect cohesive consensus. We have so much experience, and we are experts in this field, so we just expect you to listen carefully. Otherwise this will get very difficult for all of us.’
As you can see here, Harry is trying to convince George to fit into the office culture. Persuasion is part of the soft influence，This strategy is based on persuading people of their appeal and then convincing them through logic, facts, or emotional needs
2. George spent the entire weekend revising the report, following precisely Janet’s comments. He removed all of his ideas since it was clear they were not valued.On Monday morning George did not feel like going to work. He wanted to call in sick, but instead decided to sleep in and go in later than usual. Stuff them! he thought. Why should I work this hard when they treat me like this? A feeling of anger and resentment began to build up inside him.
Janet, the account manager, shredded George’s report and criticized all his ideas, which is kind of hard types of influence tactics.Silent authority, Following requests without overt influence.Based on legitimate power, role modelling.Common in high power distance cultures
3. We don’t offer big salaries’, the HR director added, ‘but you’ll be eligible for our bonus system after three months’. The company offered a 10% annual bonus to all confirmed employees. ‘To be clear, you’ll be eligible upon successful completion of your three-month probation, but that’s just a formality, everyone gets onto the bonus system after three months’, the HR Director said reassuringly.
The HR director and Janet made it clear at this meeting that George would be eligible for the bonus system after three months. This is one of the soft influences in the influence strategy,exchange.Exchange, means promising or reminding of past benefits in exchange for compliance,includes negotiation and networking.
How People Influence Others in the ABCs
Example： Our projects involve lots of collaboration and thinking outside the box. Most of your time will be spent in brainstorming meetings where you can dazzle us with your genius!’ Janet said with a smile.
The manager at ABC places a high value on collaboration between employees and requires most projects to be completed through collaboration. This has led to a particular culture at ABC where the general workforce becomes very cohesive and it can be difficult for new employees to fit in with the older workforce.
Example ： She has just built herself a network of colleagues in the organisation which makes her so confident. She does not work hard, nor is she clever, but she tries to get involved in every decision. She speaks up at every team meeting and often talks to influential people in the cafeteria.’
She has just built herself a network of colleagues in the organisation which makes her so confident. She does not work hard, nor is she clever, but she tries to get involved in every decision. She speaks up at every team meeting and often talks to influential people in the cafeteria.’
How George can use these tactics to improve his visibility in company
Once we understand the principles of influence based on activities and examples, there are a number of ways in which we can use influence. Firstly, we can see from the examples that the essence of influence is that people change passively in response to changes in their environment, much of which we can consider to be in our control.
First of all, we need to understand that influence is mutual.
If I were George, firstly, it would be necessary to cheer myself up every day. Secondly, it is important to integrate into the company environment by managing my expressions and behaving appropriately. I have to be assertive when I’m being accused. Because George is a capable person anyway, he just isn’t good enough in certain areas, so we need to recognise our own value. Finally, it’s important to choose the right environment for you
Group 5 Conflict
Conflict Defined: The process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party.
NEGOTIATION：The process whereby two or more conflicting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by redefining the terms of their interdependence:need to consider desired outcomes, tactics, deal design and the scope of the negotiation.
1. Using the Conflict model, analyse the escalation of conflict in the case? Consequences?
The conflict model is designed to provide a way for law and other professionals to understand why people act the way they do in conflict situations. He describes patterns of how humans operate in the context of conflict, and why they do so. Understanding the causes and mechanisms allows us to hopefully learn how to cope more effectively with and ditch. George thought that he was in accordance with the requirements of Janet carefully completed the customer report, but Janet thinks George’s report is good for nothing, but also he carefully prepared the report all torn, since then George also does not work seriously, passive work, late and leave early
Later in the meeting, Janet thought that George was not able to enjoy the bonus benefits of the company and that George’s ability was insufficient, so George was severely hit. Both sides may have verbal or even physical conflicts, which seriously affected both sides and even the whole working process of the company. Finally, George might be fired or resign. It could also affect George’s future work
2. Using relevant theories, recommend how to solve conflicts in this case.
Consultation and negotiation is a better way to solve this kind of problem, this is because: through consultation, both sides can know about and understand each other’s problems, and consultation is a good way to vent. George As a new employee, he should actively raise questions and express his predicament so as to better integrate into the new working environment. In this context, the conflict comes from George’s silence and the old staff’s refusal to communicate. Their authoritarian style is difficult for newcomers to adjust to. Especially if, like George, a graduate student without any work experience. Therefore, company should provide appropriate employment training such as on-the-job training to avoid the problem of new employees can not fit in.
3. Using relevant theories, recommend how George can negotiate with other to get what he wants.
The first thing to do is to allay Janet’s and the company’s doubts about him and make them think that George is up to the job. Avoid conflicts with people in the company, listen carefully to the opinions of others, and treat them with respect. If you think your content is better, you should move the evidence to prove it and convince others.
The reason for George’s dissatisfaction was that the company did not give George what it had promised him before he started.
When George started, he found it difficult to communicate with his colleagues and express his ideas. A colleague, Harry, told him it was better to do nothing and to listen and follow the team. And George found Harry’s threatening behavior to other colleagues, which made him very depressed.
Then, the report George had worked so hard on was completely dismissed by his manager, Janet. His ideas were not taken seriously. Finally, at the review meeting, George was not given the expected access to the bonus system and was told to work for another three months.
Overall, George entered a company with the ambition and expectation of a work-life balance, a harmonious and relaxed work environment where he could be creative and his colleagues would be supportive and cooperative. He wanted to be listened to and recognized in the workplace and encouraged and supported when he was not doing his job well. However, the entire company gives him negative reactions, harsh words, and an unattainable bonus system.
2. Using motivational theories, recommend how the company can motivate George? (and others)
According to Expectancy theory, we suggest to set up a bonus system in the company and implement it, such as: rewarding bonus for completing projects, reimbursing office electronics, etc. Strengthen the motivational training of supervisors to make employees comfortable in the work environment.
According to McClelland’s needs theory, we suggest that the company organize more group activities to enhance the understanding between employees, improve the relationship, and strengthen the sense of collective honor of employees.
Theory 1: Employee Involvement Model
Basically, this model is a pre-step and the foundation for a rational decision making
model (our second theory). The outcome of this model will be input into the first step in a
rational decision making model (this part got wrong, the second part would also be wrong
from the very beginning).
1. Preparation: Introduce more perspectives on problems as much as possible, for a
more thorough picture on the issues.
2. Incubation: Brain-storming. Identify abundant potential problems.
3. Illumination: A long journey and a lot of effort in order to accurately define the
4. Verification: Eventually, successfully define the actual problem in urgency. Also to
review other potential problems.
Problematic Decision 2: Re-Evaluation.
According to the rational decision making model, the company’s decision on re-evaluating
George’s performance is problematic.
Step 1: Problem identification – Again, the company lacks an accurate understanding of
their actual office culture. The cause for George’s poor performance and his failure in
meeting the expectation is the actual problem to be solved, not his performance itself.
Step 2: Choose the best decision making process – For the re-evaluation decision, the
company chooses the wrong decision making model, which involves only the perspectives
and opinions from the leaders and managers.
Step 3: Discover & Develop potential choices – If the company performs step 3 correctly,
they should have a deep conversation with George, and ask his colleagues’ opinion, the
company would have a better picture on George’s performance, and the mistake in Step 2
could be revised. Unfortunately, they didn’t.
Step 6: Post-Evaluation to Decision – The post-evaluation or an introspection is missing,
which makes the decisions as whatever the decision makers say so. Even if the decision is
wrong, it would never meet a correction.