Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The module aims to provide an understanding of the practical and professional issues
associated with information management and organizational behaviour and how these
relate to effective management practice. The module demonstrates the application of
behavioural science within the workplace, relating to information management, and it
emphasizes the role of management as a core integrating activity. It will provide an
understanding of the human aspects of the management of change, especially where
these relate to information management
1. Assess the need for effective management techniques within the organization
and propose appropriate tactics and strategies for competitive advantage.
Method of Assessment
Learning Outcomes
Assessment Weight (%) 1 2 3
Individual Assignment
i) Written essay 20
ii) Case Study 20
Total 100
Assessment
CHP 01.
Introduction to Organizational
Behavior
Page 32
5 PART 2: UNDERSTANDING AND Submission/presentation
MANAGING INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR of Case Study#1
Page 62
Page 92
Case Study#4
Page 116
Case Study#5
Comparing Co-Workers
against Each Other: Does
This Motivate Employees?
Page 146
Case Study#6
Page 176
Case Study#7
Page 210
13 CHP 09 Submission/presentation
Managing Individual Stress of Case Study#7
Case Study#8
Page 236
SUBMISSION OF
INDIVIDUAL
ASSIGNMENT (WEEK 15)
18/10/2010-22/10/2010
FINAL EXAMINATION
Page 307
Page 337
Page 366
Page 401
Page 546
QUESTION FOR EACH COURSEWORK
a. CHAPTER 2
b. CHAPTER 3
c. CHAPTER 4
In the work situation the process of perception and selection of stimuli can
influence a manager’s relationship with other staff. Detail fully and with
supporting examples the principles to bear in mind in perceiving other people,
and the dynamics of interpersonal perception.
d. CHAPTER 5
e. CHAPTER 10
Given what you know and have learnt about public sector organizations and their
styles of management, explore ways in which the nature and quality of leadership
appears to differ from that in the private sector. What conclusion you draw from
these differences.
f. CHAPTER 16
Case 1
The Nice Trap
In these pages we’ve already noted that one downside of agreeableness is that
agreeable people tend to have lower levels of career success. Though agreeableness
doesn’t appear to be related to job performance, agreeable people do earn less money.
Though we’re not sure why this is so, it may be that agreeable individuals are less
aggressive in negotiating starting salaries and pay raises for themselves.
Yet there is clear evidence that agreeableness is something employers value. Several
recent books argue in favor of the “power of nice” (Thaler & Koval, 2006) and
“the kindness revolution” (Horrell, 2006). Other articles in the business press have
argued that the sensitive, agreeable CEO—as manifested in CEOs such as GE’s Jeffrey
Immelt and Boeing’s James McNerney—signals a shift in business culture (Brady,
2007). In many circles, individuals desiring success in their careers are exhorted to be
“complimentary,” “kind,” and “good” (for example, Schillinger, 2007).
So, while employers want agreeable employees, agreeable employees are not better job
performers, and they are less successful in their careers. One might explain this
apparent contradiction by noting that employers value agreeable employees for other
reasons: They are more pleasant to be around, and they may help others in ways that
aren’t reflected in their job performance. While the former point seems fair enough—
agreeable people are better liked—it’s not clear that agreeable individuals actually help
people more. A review of the “organizational citizenship” literature revealed a pretty
weak correlation between an employee’s agreeableness and how much he or she
helped others.
Moreover, a 2008 study of CEO and CEO candidates revealed that this contradiction
applies to organizational leaders as well. Using ratings made of candidates from
an executive search firm, these researchers studied the personalities and abilities of 316
CEO candidates for companies involved in buyout and venture capital
transactions. They found that what gets a CEO candidate hired is not what makes him or
her effective. Specifically, CEO candidates who were rated high on “nice” traits such as
respecting others, developing others, and teamwork were more likely to be hired.
However, these same characteristics—especially teamwork and respecting others for
venture capital CEOs—made the organizations that the CEOs led less successful.
Questions
2. Often, the effects of personality depend on the situation. Can you think of
some job situations in which agreeableness is an important virtue? And in
which it is harmful?
3. In some research we’ve conducted, we’ve found that the negative effects of
agreeableness on earnings is stronger for men than for women (that is,
being agreeable hurt men’s earnings more than women’s). Why do you think
this might be the case?
Case 2
Natural Disaster and the Decision that Follow
Jeff Rommel’s introduction to Florida could be described as trial by hurricane. Rommel
took over Florida operations in 2004 for Nationwide Insurance. Over a 2-month period in
2004, Florida experienced its worst hurricane season in history—four major hurricanes
(Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne) slammed the state, causing an estimated $40
billion in damage. In the hurricanes’ wake, Nationwide received more than 119,000
claims, collectively worth $850 million.
Although dealing with those claims was difficult, even more difficult was Rommel’s later
decision to cancel approximately 40,000 homeowners’ policies. Nationwide received a
huge amount of media attention as a result, almost all negative. In reflecting on the
decision, Rommel said, “Pulling out was a sound business decision. Was it good for the
individual customer? No, I can’t say it was. But the rationale was sound.”
Hurricanes aren’t the only weapons in nature’s arsenal, and the insurance industry is
hardly the only industry affected by nature. Consider the airline industry. American
Airlines has 80,000 employees, 4 of whom make decisions to cancel flights. One of them
is Danny Burgin. When weather systems approach, Burgin needs to consider a host of
factors in deciding which flights to cancel and how to reroute affected passengers. He
argues that of two major weather factors, winter snowstorms and summer
thunderstorms, snowstorms are easier to handle because they are more predictable.
Don’t tell that to JetBlue, however. On February 14, 2007, JetBlue was unprepared for a
snowstorm that hit the East Coast. Due to the lack of planning, JetBlue held hundreds of
passengers on its planes, at JFK, in some cases for as long as 10 hours (with
bathrooms closed!). To the stranded travelers, JetBlue’s tepid offer of a refund was just
as outrageous. For an airline that prided itself on customer service and had regularly
been rated as the top U.S. airline in customer satisfaction, it was a public relations
disaster. Linda Hirneise, an analyst at J.D. Power, said, “It did not appear JetBlue had a
plan.” In defending the airline, JetBlue’s founder and CEO, David Neeleman, said, “Is
our good will gone? No, it isn’t. We fly 30 million people a year. Ten thousand were
affected by this.” In responding to another interviewer, he said, “You’re overdoing it.
Delta screwed people for two days, and we did it for three and a half, okay? So go ask
Delta what they did about it. Why don’t you grill them?” Eventually, though, Neeleman
himself was affected by it, and he stepped down.
Questions
1. Insurance companies in the state of Florida earned record profits in 2006, suggesting
that Nationwide’s decision to cancel policies in light of the calm hurricane seasons (in
Florida) in 2005–2007 may have cost the company potential revenue and customer
goodwill. Do you think Rommel’s quote about making a “sound business decision”
reveals any perceptual or decision-making biases? Why or why not?
2. Review the section on common biases and errors in decision making. For companies
such as Nationwide, American Airlines, and JetBlue that must respond to natural
events, which of these biases and errors are relevant and why?
3. How do you think people like Rommel, Burgin, and Neeleman factor ethics into their
decisions? Do you think the welfare of policy owners and passengers enter into their
decisions?
3. GROUP PROJECT
Assess the need for effective management techniques within the organization and
propose appropriate tactics and strategies for competitive advantage.
Coverage: The overall organizational behaviour topics in the syllabus. Students can
choose any topics. Student should exploit the ideas they have acquired to
produce a good grade research.
INSTRUCTION OF EACH COURSEWORK
Objectives
Upon completion of this project, the students will be able to:
• present ideas in a form of writing
• demonstrate overall understanding of human aspect of management
• argue/comment issues raised in organizational behaviour
Format
• essay questions
• individual basis
Marking
• 50 x 2 = 100 marks i.e. 20% of the component.
Assess the need for effective management techniques within the organization and
propose appropriate tactics and strategies for competitive advantage.
Objectives:
• to apply the knowledge learned into situation/ organization
• to propose appropriate tactics and strategies for improving performance in
the organization of the case.
• to write ideas well.
Coverage
• Students prepare written report
Format
• Individual assessment to encourage freewill thinking
• question of situation and opinion
• active observers, attendance in class discussion, consultation, presentation
and seminar.
Marking
40 x 2 = 80 marks i.e 20% of the component
3. GROUP PROJECT
Objectives
• to demonstrate some pattern of organizational behaviour in the company of
their choice.
• to study the factors that contribute to the overall performance and
effectiveness of the organisation.
• to encourage effective teamwork in producing a quality project work
• to apply creative presentation skills ideas in forms of oral, visual aid and
writing reports.
Format
• Two groups are chosen as observers for each group presenter. They are
required to participate in question and answer session. (see presentation
evaluation sheet)
• Students are required to write a full report thus suggesting solutions to the
organization based on their research
• Produce standard documentation such bibliography, appendix.
• Each group are given 10 – 15 minutes to present (including Q & A sessions)
Marking
• report 60 marks, presentation and teamwork 40 marks
• 100 marks i.e. 40% of the component.
Words of advice
1. Students/groups are advised to pay attention to the project report requirements
to gain good marks. Consultations with the lecturer are very much encouraged.
2. The group should report the progress of the project fortnightly and marks are
awarded for each consultation/report.
3. Students/groups are required to report to the supervisor in the case of
uncooperative member or the kind in the group.
Important date:
Presentation of project: 4 – 6 October 2010 (week 13)
Submission of report: 20 October 2010 (week 15)
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR EACH COURSEWORK ITEM
Subject area:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………...
I declare that this coursework is my own individual work. Cheating is a serious academic offence. I have read
and agree to abide by the University guidance on academic honesty.
Introductory Section
Interpretation of Title and Launches straight into essay The introduction is perfunctory Clearly understands and states
Introduction (10%) with no attempt to introduce or with a limited attempt to define the key issues of the essay.
define the topic. (1-3) the scope of the essay. (4-6) (7-10)
Body of Essay
Logical Development This is confused and This could be better organised The essay develops a logical
(10%) disorganised so that the story with the sequence of some argument and marshals ideas
is obscure. (1-3) material being rather illogical. clearly. (7-10)
(4-6)
Subject relevance (15%) Essay contains too much Some irrelevant / repetitive All material relevant to the subject
irrelevant/repetitive subject material. (6-10) of the essay. (11-15)
matter. (1-5)
Strength and depth of Far too much reliance on Little personal input. Mainly in Clear and informed analysis of
analysis. (20%) written sources - undigested précis of written sources. Some subject matter. (15-20)
material incorporated. Little analysis. (8-14)
analysis. (1-7)
Use of Sources (10%) Little evidence of any Most reference material covered. Shows good grasp of all relevant
supporting evidence. (1-3) (4-6) references. (7-10)
Concluding Section
Conclusions (10%) Essay comes to an abrupt end Conclusions rather perfunctory. Good concluding section drawing
without a proper concluding (4-6) together the various points made.
section. (1-3) (7-10)
Other Features
References (10%) Very few or no references in References are not always References are always properly
text or listed. (1-3) properly and appropriately cited and appropriately cited and listed.
and listed. (4-6) (7-10)
Spelling (5%) Far too many spelling errors. Most words are correctly spelt. All words are correctly spelt.
(1-2) (3-4) (5)
Grammar and Syntax (5%) Grammar and syntax need A few misuses of words and No errors of syntax and grammar.
urgent attention. (1-2) occasional errors of sentence (5)
construction. (3-4)
Length (5%) Far too long or too short. (1-2) The length could have been The length was correct for the
better. (3-4) subject matter. (5)
Subject area:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………...
I declare that this coursework is my own individual work. Cheating is a serious academic offence. I have read
and agree to abide by the University guidance on academic honesty.
Body of Essay
Logical Development This is confused and This could be better organised The essay develops a logical
(10%) disorganised so that the story with the sequence of some argument and marshals ideas
is obscure. (1-3) material being rather illogical. clearly. (7-10)
(4-6)
Subject relevance (10%) Essay contains too much Some irrelevant / repetitive All material relevant to the subject
irrelevant/repetitive subject material. (6-10) of the essay. (11-15)
matter. (1-5)
Strength and depth of Far too much reliance on Little personal input. Mainly in Clear and informed analysis of
analysis. (10%) written sources - undigested précis of written sources. Some subject matter. (15-20)
material incorporated. Little analysis. (8-14)
analysis. (1-7)
Use of Sources (5%) Little evidence of any Most reference material covered. Shows good grasp of all relevant
supporting evidence. (1-3) (4-6) references. (7-10)
Spelling (5%) Far too many spelling errors. Most words are correctly spelt. All words are correctly spelt.
(1-2) (3-4) (5)
Grammar and Syntax (5%) Grammar and syntax need A few misuses of words and No errors of syntax and grammar.
urgent attention. (1-2) occasional errors of sentence (5)
construction. (3-4)
Length (5%) Far too long or too short. (1-2) The length could have been The length was correct for the
better. (3-4) subject matter. (5)
Students Declaration
We declare that this coursework is our own individual work. Cheating is a serious
academic offence. We have read and agree to abide by the University guidance on
academic honesty.
Signatures......................................................................................................................
(All students in the group must sign above)
Clarity of objectives /5
Logical development of ideas /5
Relevant information and argument /5
Clarity of conclusions /5
Bibliography/References /5
Coherence of group /5
Handling of questions /5
Clarity/layout of slides (handout) /5
Overall handout mark /40
(cont. overleaf)
Statement of Objectives
Interpretation of subject Launches straight into The introduction is Clearly states the key
area (10%) report with no attempt to perfunctory with a limited objectives of the report
state the objectives of attempt to define the (7-10)
the report (1-3) objectives of the report (4-6)
Body of Report
Logical Development This is confused and This could be better The report develops a
(5%) disorganised so that the organised with the sequence logical argument and
story is obscure. (1-2) of some material being rather marshals ideas clearly.
illogical. (3-4) (5)
Subject relevance (5%) Report contains too Some irrelevant / repetitive All material relevant to
much irrelevant/repetitive material. (3-4) the subject of the report.
subject matter. (1-2) (5)
Strength and depth of Far too much reliance on Little personal input. Mainly Clear and informed
analysis (10%) written sources - in précis of written sources. analysis of subject
undigested material Some analysis (4-6) matter (7-10)
incorporated. Little
analysis (1-3)
Use of Sources (5%) Little evidence of any Some reference material Shows good grasp of all
supporting evidence covered (3-4) relevant references. (5)
(1-2)
Concluding Section
Other Features
References (5%) Very few or no References are not always References are always
references in text or properly and appropriately properly and
listed. (1-2) cited and listed (3-4) appropriately cited and
listed (5)
Spelling (5%) Far too many spelling Most words are correctly All words are correctly
errors. (1-2) spelt. (3-4) spelt. (5)
Grammar and Syntax Grammar and syntax A few misuses of words and No errors of syntax and
need urgent attention. occasional errors of sentence grammar. (5)
(5%) (1-2) construction. (3-4)
Intermediate assessments are indicated by a tick on the line separating the boxes