Assessment 3: Group Case Study and Team Processes (40%)

Assessment 3: Group Case Study and Team Processes (40%)

This assessment is comprised of two (2) parts. The first part focuses on the case study whilst the second part focuses on your own experience in your OB team. You are expected to apply the concepts and theories you have learnt during the unit to specific organisational issues in the case study and your team experience.

The total word limit for Assessment 3 is 3,000words (+ or 10% is acceptable). Assignments that are more than 10% over the word limit will be penalised) and the reference list is excluded from the word count. The assessment is to be uploaded as a WORD document, not as a pdf.

Assessment 3 Part 1: Group Case Study Review (20%)

This part of the assessment will be completed in teams. The teams will be invited and approved by the lecturer during the Unit. On or before the due date, one of the team members will submit the assignment via Turnitin. The due date and time are specified in the Unit Outline's program calendar (at the back of the Unit Outline).

A case study and associated questions that will form the basis of this assessment will be provided by the instructor via Blackboard. You will be asked to review the case study in the context of the relevant OB concepts and theories studied during the unit and answer the questions relating to the case study.

When reviewing your written responses to the questions you should reflect on the following areas:

Is your diagnosis and recommended action practical to implement and/or a good fit for the context presented in the case study?

Is the diagnosis and recommended action you put forward based on a sound theoretical basis?

Have you demonstrated critical thinking skills in responding to these issues, i.e. have you gone beyond description and demonstrated deep, critical analysis to arrive at their recommendations and solutions?

Have you used the appropriate academic writing style and referencing?

Structure, Assessment Criteria and Word Limit

At the beginning of Part 2, you must list the names of each of the team members and their student numbers. Each question must be numbered according to the question number on the question sheet.

Your answers will be assessed on the basis of the assessment criteria listed in this assessments rubric marking (available on Blackboard). These cover Discipline Knowledge and Skills Standard and Written Communication Skills Standard Skills. As the review questions above indicate, the Discipline Knowledge and Skills Standard are of primary importance.

Each answer should be a maximum of 850 words in length (+/- 10%). The word count does not include references or tables. At the end of questions being answered, you must provide a word count for your answer. You will provide references you have used (at least 3 per answer) in Chicago 17B referencing format and upload the final document as a single WORD document, not as a pdf. One group member will be chosen by the group to upload the paper on behalf of the group.

Assessment 3 Part 2: Individual Reflection on group and team processes (20%)

This section of the assignment will be completed and submitted individually by students as a single WORD document, not as a pdf. It will be uploaded into Turnitin by the date and time indicated on the Unit Outline's program calendar (at the end of the Unit Outline).

In this section of the assignment, you will be asked to provide reflection and critical analysis of the experiential learning cycle(s) you have undergone as a member of ateamduring your OB unit. You are asked to focus on what have you learnt about yourself during this unit that will be useful in future group work (either in a study or work setting). You are required to refer to relevant OB theory to support your observation and analysis and specifically to Kolbs experiential learning cycle model: concrete experience; reflective observation; abstract conceptualisation; and active experimentation.

The following questions should help to guide your reflection regarding your experience within a diverse team:

Did your team perform well? If so, why? If not, why not? (Refer to relevant OB theory to support your observation and analysis; provide evidence-based analysis, for example, on the group's principal forms of communication).

What role did you play in helping the team reach its goal (a successful case study analysis, productive group discussions, learning from each other, etc.)? (Refer to relevant OB theory to support your observation and analysis).

What were the strengths and weaknesses of your teams output (i.e. discussions and activities and the case study analysis - what worked particularly well, what could have been done differently?) (Refer to relevant OB theory to support your observation and analysis).

What have you learned about yourself during this unit that will be useful in future group or team work (either in a study or work setting)? (Refer specifically to relevant OB theory to support your observation and analysis and specifically to Kolbs experiential learning cycle model).

Anything else you have learned about working in diverse groups or teams.

When reviewing the analysis of your experience in Part 2, you should consider the following:

Have you demonstrated critical thinking skills in analysing your team experience? That is, have you gone beyond description and have shown that you have critically analysed your teams performance and their role within the team via reference to relevant OB theory/concepts?

Have you demonstrated discipline knowledge skills in identifying what they have learned in the unit that is relevant to your analysis?

Structure, Assessment Criteria and Word Limit

Given that this is a reflective piece of academic writing, it is acceptable to write in the first person; however, you are expected to use an academic style of writing and to refer to the relevant academic literature to support your reflections/critical analysis and include at least 3 references plus the textbook reference in your assignment and use correct referencing with Chicago 17B protocols.

Part 2 is worth 20 marks and will be assessed using the same rubric marking as used for Part 1 (available on Blackboard). Your answer should be a maximum of 1300 words in length (+/- 10%). The word count does not include the reference list. Your word count will need to be included on your cover page.

Criteria Below Expectations

Fail (0 49) Meets Expectations

Pass (50 59) Meets Expectations

Credit (60 69) Exceeds Expectations

Distinction (70 79) Exceeds Expectations

High Distinction (80 100)

Identification of issues: Discipline knowledge and skills standard (15%) Inadequately identifies and analyses issues and problems.

Where applicable, does not identify relevant models. Identifies and analyses the most significant issues and problems. Where applicable, identifies relevant models. Identifies and analyses issues and problems with adequate reference to the

Interrelationships among the issues.

Where applicable,

identifies relevant models. Identifies and analyses complex interrelationships among the issues and/or problems.

Where applicable,

discusses application

of relevant models. Identifies and analyses deep and complex

Inter-relationships among the issues and/or problems. Where applicable, identifies

expanded application of relevant models.

Perspective: Critical self-reflection (25%) No attempt at critical reflection and critical analysis of the results of the self-assessment exercises. Simply attaches results or describes results without reflecting on how they apply to them and how they can be used to further personal and professional development. Some attempt at critical reflection and critical analysis of the results of the self-assessment exercises. Simple reflection on how the results apply and how they can be used for further personal and professional development but the discussion lacks depth. Sufficient critical reflection and critical analysis on self-assessment exercises but not always correct in interpretation, there are some errors and the discussion fails to show interconnections between different topics. Good critical reflection and critical analysis on self-assessment exercises with sufficient details on interrelationship among topics. Insightful critical reflection and critical analysis on self-assessment exercises and is able to interweave concepts together to produce a coherent discussion. Demonstrates deep personal insight into own reactions and experiences. Discusses the learning points and implications for future in detail.

Application of Discipline knowledge; understanding of course content

(30 %) Needs greater use of course content and concepts, some concepts may be included but needs much more depth. There may also be areas of misunderstanding. Even while some interesting points are raised they need to be developed significantly. Limited use of course content, for the most part suggests description. Where course content is used may be some errors or superficial use although is aware of key issues. Answer would benefit from more depth.

Makes some reference to course content but here and there suggests a tendency to be superficial and/or may show errors in understanding. Overall, however, shows a good understanding of relevant concepts.

Refers to course content and concepts where explicitly relevant but could have drawn on other ideas to add further depth. Shows a robust understanding of course content used though in some areas may have been explained further.

Demonstrates a clear and explicit connection with course content i.e. incorporates relevant OB concepts, theories and research to analyse the results of the self-assessment exercises. Discusses managerial implications of leverage in detail. Shows understanding of both strengths and weaknesses and provides a complete plan for self-improvement.

Evidence based analysis (critical thinking standard)

(15%)

No academic sources have been cited or the information analysed is gathered from very limited academic source(s). The analysis is

superficial and based

on irrelevant information,

concepts and methods A few relevant academic sources (peer reviewed journal articles) have been cited but not always used appropriately. The analysis lacks depth and is not cohesive.

A few relevant academic sources (peer reviewed journal articles) have been cited appropriately but not synthesised in a cohesive discussion. Many relevant academic sources (peer reviewed journal articles) have been cited appropriately and synthesised to form a reasonable discussion. The discussion feels a little disjointed in some places but overall provides a good overview. A comprehensive and cohesive analysis is provided through appropriate and skilful use of many relevant academic sources (peer reviewed journal articles). Shows thorough understanding of concepts and research on topic(s) discussed.

Control of Syntax and mechanics (written communication skills standard) (10%) Did not use language that

conveys meaning to readers with sufficient clarity and includes some

errors.

Limited vocabulary, consistent errors in grammar, spelling & punctuation. Poor structure. Uses language sufficiently well to

convey basic meaning although

errors reduce

effectiveness of

communication.

Good vocabulary. Minor grammar and spelling errors. Is able to communicate the ideas. Structure is sufficient. Uses language that

generally conveys

meaning to readers

with clarity and

writing is virtually

error free.

Exhibits good academic writing skills and vocabulary. Minimal errors; good flow of argument. Well structured. Uses language that

effectively conveys

meaning to readers

with clarity. Any errors

which occur do not

reduce effectiveness

of communication.

Quality academic writing skills; OB vocabulary is evident; minimal grammatical errors; good flow of argument. Structure is professional. Uses language that

skilfully communicates

meaning to readers with

clarity and fluency, and is

error free. Excellent control of language and vocabulary.

Logically written with ideas and concepts expressed clearly and succinctly.

Overall structure is very professional

Referencing-Uses Chicago 17B referencing style accurately (5%)

No referencing has been done in the assignment

or

No in-text citations have been provided but a reference list is attached

or

In-text citations are provided but no reference list is attached. Many errors in use of Chicago 17B and/or uses a non-prescribed style/format Few errors in using Chicago 17B referencing style or some citations and references are omitted Chicago 17B referencing style is used almost perfectly with very few errors or inconsistencies Citations and references fully comply with Chicago 17B.

CASE STUDY QUESTIONS FOR:

Jean-Philippe Courtois at Microsoft Global Sales, Marketing and Operations: Empowering Digital Success

Instructions

Please answer 2 of the 3 questions.

You can answer either question 1 or question 2.

You must answer question 3.

Each of your two responses must be supported by relevant organisational behaviour theory. Please avoid summarising the case study. Instead, focus on analysis and the requirements in the marking guide for Assessment 3, Part 1.

Assignment Questions:

Q1. Drawing from the concept of oganisational culture and relevant organisational change models, critically analyse the challenges faced by Courtois in changing the culture at Microsoft.

Q2. Critically analyse the leadership style of Courtois and assess his effectiveness as a change agent and leader in the organisation.

Q3. Taking examples from the case study, construct a template for digital transformation of businesses. Please include relevant organisational structure and work design models, theories, and research to substantiate your recommendations, with a particular focus on psychosocial/motivational perspective of work design.