UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT 3360 ORGANIZATION THEORY Section A Instructor: Dr. John M.

Usher Term: Spring 2007 Office: E582 Time: MW 15:05 to 16:20 Telephone: 329-2759 Room: AH176 E-mail: john.usher@uleth.ca Office hours: MW 13:30 15:00 _____________________________________________________________________________ _ Course Objectives: This course is about organizations and the linkages among their environments, strategies and structures. How and why organizations function as they do will be described in a framework designed to improve organizational effectiveness. The course will focus on the aggregate behaviour of people in various organizations - business, government, education, professions. This course builds on the material covered in MGT2030 which deals with the behaviour of individuals and small groups in organizations - a micro focus. MGT3360 will use an integrative macro focus to diagnose and analyze how the successful implementation of organizational strategies is often contingent upon achieving a good fit between specific environmental factors and organizational structure and process variables.

Course Materials: Daft, Richard L. Organization Theory and Design, 9th edition, (8th edition may also be used if available.), St. Paul MN: West Publishing, 2007. ISBN: 0-324-40542-1 Basis of Evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. Group Presentation Mid term examination Group Assessment Final examination 20% 35% 10% 35% 100%

Grade Distributions A+ A A95-100 90-94 86-89 B+ B B82-85 78-81 74-77 C+ C C70-73 66-69 62-65 D+ D F 58-61 50-57 00-49

Course Structure and Requirements: Group Presentation: Students will be required to work in groups of their own choosing to prepare and present a case analysis from the text. Group size will be 5 students. Group members may be fired for cause by a majority of the group following consultation with me. There is no alternative work for credit available to fired members. Do not find yourself in this situation. Teamwork is a critical managerial skill set. Presentations will be structured as follows: (1) A 15-20 minute overview / interpretation of the case facts ending with a summary of the key issues facing the organization. Creativity (game shows, videos, skits, etc.) is highly encouraged for this segment but you should be sure that form does not overwhelm substance. (2) Each presenting group will also have the responsibility of providing a list of questions about the case to be answered by the other groups in the class. You will assign each non-presenting group a different question that applies the theory of the current chapter (and previous chapters if appropriate) and the taking up of these questions by the presenting group will constitute the analysis / diagnosis segment of their presentation. Questions that should be avoided include those which call for conclusions such as specific recommendations or details of implementation as these are the job of the presenting group. Upon assigning the analysis questions, members of the presenting group will circulate among the non-presenting groups to provide advice and general assistance during the 15-20 minutes available for these groups to work on their responses. Before your presentation begins please provide me with a list of the questions that you expect the other groups to answer and ensure that I am aware which groups will be assigned which questions. I will gladly review your proposed questions before you finalize them for class use. Just email them to me, drop by during office hours or make an appointment for this purpose. (3) Upon reconvening the class, the presenting group will call upon a spokesperson from each non-presenting group in turn to provide their response to the assigned question. After each response, a member of your presenting group will comment on the answer provided and discuss in detail how you handled that question. You are the experts after all! (4) During the final segment of the presentation, the presenting group provides details of how they would resolve the issues of the case: alternative courses of action that were considered (with the pro's & con's of each), the recommended course of action (which of the alternatives was chosen), and implementation details (demonstrating the feasibility of putting your recommendation into action.) Examine your alternatives carefully to ensure that they are true alternatives, i.e. it is not possible to do more than one at the same time. A hint: if you find that you are recommending more than one of your alternatives, your thinking may have gone astray. The time available for each presentation including Q&A and final comments will be 60-65 minutes. Time management is in the hands of the presenting group and excessively long or short presentations will be reflected in the grade assigned. The 65 minute time limit is to allow a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of your presentation so that I can comment briefly on your performance. Grading of the presentation and Q&A segment will be based on the attached guideline (Appendix 1) which I and each of the other groups will complete for each presentation to yield a composite score: My score + average of other group scores = group presentation score. Group Assessment: Since the participation of non-presenting groups is crucial to the success of each case, part of your grade will depend on my assessment of the degree of preparation, quality of analysis and attendance of your group when it is not presenting. This is an evaluation by exception activity. If the majority of your group is in attendance, you appear to have read and discussed the case before coming to class and your responses show good understanding of the

course material each time, you will get full marks. For each exception to these criteria, I will deduct marks. Course Outline: Jan 8 Jan 10 Introductions and syllabus review Organizations and Organization Theory Read: Chapter 1 Exercise: Youll play the role, so why not pick the part? Strategy, Organization Design and Effectiveness Read: Chapter 2 Case: Airstar Inc. Case: The Macleans Survey (Do in class)

Jan 15

Jan 17 Jan 22 Jan 24 Jan 29

Fundamentals of Organization Structure Read: Chapter 3 Case: UofL Faculty of Management structure (Do in class)

The External Environment Read: Chapter 4 Case: Genesco Case: The Paradoxical Twins (Group #1)

Jan 31 Feb 5

Interorganizational Relationships Read: Chapter 5 Exercise: Ugli Orange *Hand out essay questions for mid term Case: Hugh Russell, Inc. (Group #2)

Feb 7 Feb 12

Designing Organizations for the International Environment Read: Chapter 6 *Assign Chpt. 7 Workbook exercise: Bistro Technology Mid-Term Exam: Reading Week Reading Week Return and review Mid-Term results Manufacturing and Service Technologies Read: Chapter 7 Workbook exercise: Bistro Technology Case: Acetate Department (Group #3) Wednesday, Feb 14th

Feb 14 Feb 19 Feb 21 Feb 26 Feb 28

Mar 5 Mar 7

Organization Size, Life Cycle and Decline Read: Chapter 9

Workbook exercise: Control mechanisms Mar 12 Mar 14 Case: Sunflower Incorporated (Group #4)

Organizational Culture and Ethical Values Read: Chapter 10 Corporate culture video exercise Case: Does this Milkshake Taste Funny? (Group #5)

Mar 19 Mar 21

Innovation and Change Read: Chapter 11 Case: Southern Discomfort Case: Shoe Corporation of Illinois (Group #6)

Mar 26 Mar 28

Decision Making Processes Read: Chapter 12 Case: The Dilemma of Aliesha State College Case: Cracking the Whip (Group #7)

Apr 2 Apr 4

Conflict, Power and Politics Read: Chapter 13 Workbook exercise: How do you handle conflict? *Hand out essay questions for final

Apr 10

Appendix 1 PRESENTATION EVALUATION FORM

DATE: Scale:

CASE:

GROUP:

1 = poor; 2 = barely adequate; 3 = average; 4 = very good; 5 = excellent 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 /50

1. Did each group member have a full bio up front & adequate role? 2. Was an overview / agenda provided and timing well managed? 3. How creative was the groups portrayal of the case facts? 4. Did the group facilitate appropriate use of current chapter theory? 5. Did the group use theory from previous chapters where appropriate? 6. What was the quality of the groups proposed solution? 7. Was a workable plan of action developed for implementation? 8. Was supporting PowerPoint clear, informative and engaging? 9. What was the quality / depth of the groups assigned questions? 10. How well did the group work with the other groups in the Q&A? Total Marks: Additional Comments: