Managing Behaviour in Organisations paper 1000 words

1

MGMT90018

Managing Behaviour in Organisations

Assignment 1 – Critical Analysis Paper (20%)

2021 Semester 1

Prepared by

Adam Barsky, Subject Coordinator ([email protected])

Andrew Yu

Jesse Olsen

Victor Sojo

Department of Management and Marketing Faculty of Business and Economics

2

Overview

The purpose of the critical analysis paper in this course is to extend your critical thinking abilities within the topics that we have covered as part of this course. The assignment is intended to be open ended to push each of you to think through the issues that managers and organisations face when assessing potential matters that may emerge in the work environment.

Due Date: Friday, April 9 @ 17:00 (Melbourne time)

This is an individual assignment in which you will submit a critical analysis paper of 1000 words (+/-10%; excluding headings, in-text citations, and the reference list). As noted, in the Subject Guide, the Critical Analysis Assignment represents 20% of your total grade for the course.

Topic

In the first five (5) weeks of this course, we have discussed the topics of ethics, job performance & work behaviours, personality & values, attitudes, beliefs, & perceptions, and motivation. For this assignment, you will apply your understanding of these topics to a practical issue that organisations are facing today. You must draw upon the readings, activities, and use your own research to provide a critical analysis of up to (3) of the following questions. You can choose to do one, two or three of the questions below. It is up to you if you want to cover more topics in less depth or one topic in more depth:

COVID has changed the way we work – particularly with respect to working remotely.

1. What are the key ethical dilemmas and issues that have arisen from the change to remote work? What recommendations would you give organisational leaders and decision makers to manage these ethical issues?

2. How has job performance and work behaviour changed as a function of remote work? What recommendations would you give organisational leaders and decision makers to manage these changes?

3. How have workers with different personality types responded to remote work? Choose one personality trait and describe what recommendations you would give organisational leaders and decision makers to manage employees with this personality trait who are working remotely.

4. How have work attitudes (e.g., commitment to companies, what people find satisfying in their work) shifted as a result of remote work? What recommendations would you give organisational leaders and decision-makers to help them understand and manage employee attitudes when most of the organisation is working remotely?

5. How has remote work changed what and how managers motivate employees? What recommendations would you give organisational leaders and decision-makers to help them motivate employees who are working remotely?

Submission Guidelines

Please read the following section carefully and make sure to email the subject coordinator should you have questions about any of the following. Not following these basic instructions will lead to deductions to your final mark on this assignment.

3

- Formatting style: You are expected to follow the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th edition style for headings and seriation, citation and referencing, and tables and figures (if applicable).

o See the UniMelb library resource for details: https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite/apa o Another helpful online resource can be found at:

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html

- In-text formatting: Submissions should be double-spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman font, 1” margins all around, and in a Microsoft Word file format (i.e., .doc, .docx) or PDF.

- File naming: For consistency across all submissions, your file should be named the following format: “YourName.MGMT90018.Sem2.Assignment1”

o YourName = Your name

- Submission: Critical analysis papers must be uploaded as a .doc, .docx, or .pdf file and submitted using LMS, via the ‘Assignments’ link (Assignments → Assignment 1 Critical Analysis Paper). It would be wise to take a screen capture or photo of the final submission screen for your own records.

- Similarity Checks and Plagiarism: Submissions will be processed through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism (see Week 1’s module for a discussion of what constitutes plagiarism).

o You will be able to check your own similarity scores (for potential plagiarism) before actually submitting the assignment to us. However, TurnItIn may restrict the frequency at which you can check this, if you attempt to conduct multiple checks in a short amount of time.

o Please be familiar with what academic integrity, plagiarism, and collusion mean at the University (https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/#plagiarism-and-collusion).

General Expectations and Recommendations

The most important aspect of this assignment is simply that you provide a critical analysis of and reflection on the topic. This assignment was intentionally designed as a broad topic so that there are different directions that you could take this assignment and therefore there are many ‘correct answers.’ Be sure to (a) provide support for your position using available research, (b) discuss the opposing perspective, and (c) provide rationale as to why your arguments are preferable.

Below are several pointers that will help your thought processes better:

- A paper like this should include an introduction, body, and conclusion.

- It would be useful to use headings and subheadings to break up and organise your paper.

- You do not need a cover sheet, but be sure to include the subject code and name, your name (no nicknames, please), and your student number at the top left hand corner of the first page. For example:

4

Subject: MGMT 90018 – Managerial Psychology Topic: Assignment 1 Jane Smith (0123456789)

- For more basic information about writing, the University of Melbourne offers some resources for postgraduate students here: https://services.unimelb.edu.au/academicskills/all_resources#general-skills

You are expected to draw on the following in your assignment:

- Concepts and evidence discussed in the seminars and assigned readings for Weeks 1 to 5.

- You are not expected to cover every single topic/theory covered in each of the Weeks 1 to 5. Rather, you should choose specific theories or concepts that are relevant to helping you make your point for your critical analysis or help to support the examples that you are using to communicate your point.

- As a guideline and given the length requirement, you should aim to include a balance of three to five main ideas covered in the week(s) you are focusing on.

- The seminars should be helpful in guiding you through various topics to complete the assignment. However, because the seminars are typically summaries and descriptions of established research, you should aim to cite original sources (which may include assigned readings and outside readings), rather than just rely on the seminars themselves.

- Applicable personal examples, including your personal experience from professional work, school/university, volunteer work, other interest/belief groups, and/or class discussions and activities (e.g., personality tests, perceptions, motivation exercises, etc.).

o This can be a useful part of the paper. However, be careful not to overemphasise this; other sources need to be considered to further understand and take your experience into perspective.

o You are expected to conduct your own additional research using academic/scholarly sources. The best place to start searching for academic sources is through the university library website.

▪ Web of Science (WOS) is a very good database to start with and includes reputable academic sources. To access WOS, you can go to https://library.unimelb.edu.au. Select ‘Databases’ and type in ‘Web of Science’, select connect to Web of Science, which should then take you to a university login screen for you to gain access to WOS.

▪ A secondary database might be Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). However, note that the sources listed on scholar are not always peer-reviewed and may be less reputable.

o Peer-reviewed journal articles (and in some cases, scholarly/academic books) are the most preferred type of source. Be sure to consider whether online resources are the perspective or opinion of a particular writer. Good sources are those that have been peer-reviewed and are grounded in scientific evidence.

o Be careful not to use websites/blogs/social media posts, etc. that may be intended to promote a person and/or his/her services. Websites often reflect individual opinions and anecdotes, and they are not usually reviewed by experts. Thus, the quality of the information there will often be suspect. Popular books should also be considered

5

with caution, as they often do not cite appropriate evidence to make the claims that they do.

Final Thoughts: This is a ‘Critical Analysis Paper’. A critical analysis means that you will offer your final opinion/view or evaluation, but it importantly considers the facts and the different views/possibilities that might be out there. Of course, you need to briefly communicate WHAT your argument/point of view is and HOW these relate to the prompt (i.e., descriptive analysis), but your primary focus needs to be on WHY you take a certain position (supported largely by sound logic and, where necessary, academic research). To support your arguments and the position you take, use examples from things you have observed or work/personal experiences that can help a reader gain better clarity in your critical analysis. Put simply, we want you to focus more on the WHY and less on the WHAT and HOW. Do not leave it up to your marker to make the connections for you. Be sure to explain and support your arguments.

6

Marking

Marking will be out of a maximum of 100 points, which will be broken down according to the following table.

ASSIGNMENT 1 MARKING CRITERIA CRITERIA N (0-49%) PASS (50-64%) H3 (65-69%) H2B (70-74%) H2A (75-79%) H1 (80-100%)

CONTENT Introduction: Clarity of aim, context, & structure (5 mark)

• Very poor introduction that fails to explain the aim, context, and structure of the paper.

• Inadequate introduction to the paper. The discussion of the paper’s aim, context, and structure is unclear.

• Adequate introduction to the paper. The discussion of the paper’s aim, context, and structure is somewhat unclear.

• Good introduction to the paper. The discussion of the paper’s aim, context, and structure is mostly clear.

• Very good introduction to the paper. The discussion of the paper’s aim, context, and structure is clear.

• Excellent introduction to the paper. The discussion of the paper’s aim, context, and structure is very clear.

Theory: Integration of Organisational Behaviour theories (20 marks)

• Very poor use of relevant Organisational Behaviour concepts, theories, and terminologies in analysis.

• Rudimentary use of relevant Organisational Behaviour concepts, theories, and terminologies in analysis.

• Adequate use of relevant Organisational Behaviour concepts, theories, and terminologies in analysis.

• Good use of relevant Organisational Behaviour concepts, theories, and terminologies in analysis.

• Very good use of relevant Organisational Behaviour concepts, theories, and terminologies in analysis.

• Excellent use of relevant and complex Organisational Behaviour concepts, theories, and terminologies in analysis.

Supporting Evidence: Quality of the reflection and use of examples (15 marks)

• Examples are of extremely low quality or contradict arguments.

• Little to no reflection included. What is present is very poor in quality.

• Examples are mostly absent or irrelevant.

• Some reflection present but is superficial in quality.

• Some examples are present but are of low quality.

• Some reflection present but is of low quality.

• Examples are present but few in number and not of high quality.

• Reflection is present and is mostly clear.

• Some examples are present and are of high quality.

• Reflection is present and is of high-quality.

• Multiple high-quality examples are present.

• Reflection is present and of very high-quality.

Critical analysis: Use of objective analysis of facts to form a judgement (20 marks)

• Discussion of theoretical content (if any) is entirely descriptive.

• Discussion of theoretical content is mostly descriptive.

• Discussion of theoretical content is both descriptive and analytical.

• Discussion of theoretical content is more analytical than descriptive.

• Discussion incorporates some analysis, synthesis, and critical evaluation of theoretical content.

• Discussion incorporates detailed analysis, synthesis and critical evaluation of theoretical content.

Recommendations: Quality of Recommendations (20 mark)

• Recommendations not adequately linked to analysis.

• Recommendations inadequately address the topic.

• Recommendations mostly linked to general analysis.

• Recommendations adequately address major aspects of the topic.

• Recommendations linked to analysis.

• Recommendations address most aspects of the topic directly.

• Recommendations clearly linked to analysis.

• Recommendations address all aspects of the topic directly and in detail.

• Recommendations very clearly linked to analysis.

• Conclusions address all aspects of the topic directly and in detail.

• Some relevant and original insights are also provided.

• Recommendations strongly linked to analysis.

• Conclusions comprehensively address all aspects of the topic.

• Relevant and original insights are also provided.

7

STYLE Presentation: Clarity of the paper (10 marks)

• Grammar, spelling, and punctuation: Very poor control and use of language conventions. Major errors throughout.

• Writing style: Inappropriate or inconsistent writing style used.

• Format: Very poor formatting. Assignment guidelines not adhered to.

• Adherence to word length: Inadequate word length.

• Grammar, spelling, and punctuation: Inadequate control and use of language conventions, with some errors throughout. Further editing required.

• Writing style: Mostly consistent but could be refined to improve clarity and flow.

• Format: Adequate formatting that adheres to assignment guidelines.

• Adherence to word length: Writing could generally be more succinct/tightly structured to avoid repetition.

• Grammar, spelling, and punctuation: Adequate control and use of language conventions, with some errors throughout.

• Writing style: Consistent and generally conveys ideas clearly.

• Format: Adequate formatting. Information mostly presented in a selection of formats that ensure clarity.

• Adherence to word length: Writing could be more succinct/tightly structured in some sections.

• Grammar, spelling, and punctuation: Good control and use of language conventions, with few minor errors throughout.

• Writing style: Consistent and generally conveys ideas clearly.

• Format: Good formatting. Information presented in a range of formats that enhance clarity.

• Adherence to word length: Writing is mostly succinct and logically structured.

• Grammar, spelling, and punctuation: Very good control and use of language conventions.

• Writing style: Sophisticated and conveys ideas clearly.

• Format: Very good formatting. Information presented in a range of formats that enhance clarity and reader interest.

• Adherence to word length: Writing is succinct and well- structured.

• Grammar, spelling, and punctuation: Excellent control and use of language conventions.

• Writing style: Highly sophisticated and conveys ideas very clearly.

• Format: Excellent formatting. Information presented in optimal formats that maximise clarity and reader interest.

• Adherence to word length: Writing is very succinct and tightly structured.

References: Evidence of scholarship (10 marks)

• Poor range of sources present, if at all.

• Insufficient reference list provided.

• Numerous citation errors apparent in the reference list and/or in the paper.

• Inadequate range of sources present.

• Majority of material sourced from the lecture slides.

• Inadequate reference list provided.

• Somewhat consistent referencing style used with some errors present in the reference list and/or in the paper.

• Adequate range of sources present.

• Majority of material sourced from the required readings.

• Adequate reference list provided.

• Relatively consistent referencing style used with some errors present in the reference list and/or in the paper.

• Good range of sources present.

• Majority of material sourced from academic journal articles, including both the required readings and additional research.

• Detailed reference list provided.

• Consistent referencing style used with few errors present in the reference list and/or in the paper.

• Very good range of sources present.

• Majority of material sourced from academic journal articles, with a heavy emphasis on additional research.

• Very detailed reference list provided.

• Consistent referencing style used with very few errors present in the reference list and/or in the paper.

• Excellent range of sources present.

• Majority of material sourced from academic journal articles, with almost all references coming from additional research.

• Extensive reference list provided.

• Consistent referencing style used with no errors present in the reference list and/or in the paper.