rganisational Behaviour (TMGT201) Major Assignment Details Semester2, 2016
Key information and dates:
Group Assignment: 4-5 members per group
1st component Report Value: 20 marks 2nd component Presentation Value: 10 marks
2
Report Length: 2000 words maximum (excluding bibliography) PowerPoint Presentation: 12-15 minutes per group (every member has to participate) Draft Report Due date: (Week 8 Tutorial) 9 September Final Report Due date: (Week 10 Tutorial) 16 September Presentation Due date: (Week 11 Tutorial) 23 September Please note that the draft report submission is compulsory and failure to show the draft will result in a penalty of 10% marks from the total marks allocated towards the assignment. Assignment Requirements Assignment Topic ? Integrative Case Study: Health or safety in the workplace Refer to the integrative case study ? Health or safety in the workplace available in Moodle. Based on the case, you will compile a report which should address the following questions: 1. What are some of the ways the department could have overcome the resistance of workers to the change? 2. What were the outside drivers of change and who were the change agents in this scenario? 3. What were some of the functional and dysfunctional effects of organisational culture on the people and the organisation in this situation? 4. Based on the description in the case study, would you consider that the department has a mechanistic organisational design or an organic organisational design? 5. What would the reduction in the autonomy of workers do for their job satisfaction? 6. How would you have improved the implementation of this policy?
You will address each question separately in the body of the report. The report will have typical format i.e. Title Page, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Introduction, Paragraphs in the body of report, Conclusion, Recommendations, Bibliography. In compiling the report, you will address the above questions supported by theoretical concepts in Organisational Behaviour. Your recommendations to the relevant questions above must be justified by scholarly citations. The presentation component will also address the above questions. Other Requirements
3
Groups must submit their group member names, student IDs, email addresses to their tutor during the Week 5 Tutorials. Font: Times New Roman; Font Size: 12; Margin: Normal (2.54 cm on all sides); Spacing: 1.5
Referencing (Harvard Style) o Minimum 6 peer reviewed journal articles (some references provided in Unit Outline) o You may refer to other relevant textbooks o Wikipedia as a reference will not be accepted. o You can also see your Librarian for researching and referencing assistance Submission method
? Hard copy of the report (with signed assignment coversheet) should be handed over to your lecturer/ tutor in Week 10.
? Hard copy of the presentation slides should be handed over to your lecture/ tutor in Week 11 Tutorial.
? Students are also required to submit a soft copy of the report only in Turnitin for this assignment. Assignments without Turnitin submission will not be graded.
o Maximum acceptable similarity rate is 20% (excluding bibliography). Students are encouraged to check for originality before final submission.
? Final report must have Top Assignment Cover Sheet signed by all members.
Late submission and plagiarism
It is Top Education Institute policy that assignments cannot be submitted late without prior approval of the unit coordinator and only in extenuating circumstances supported by evidence.
Assignments submitted late without prior approval will not be graded. Any traces of plagiarism will be dealt with appropriate disciplinary measures in line with institutional policy.
If the report is without any referencing, it will be given only 0 marks out of 20 and will be considered as a failure with appropriate disciplinary measures.
4
Peer Assessment
Please be advised that confidential peer assessment will be used at the end of the assignment, for both the report and the presentation components, to ensure fair and equal contribution by the members in the group project. All members will receive the same team mark, unless and otherwise determined by such peer assessment.
Marked assignment return
The graded report will be returned to students by Week 13. Marking rubric for assessment Assessment Criteria and Performance Standards for Case Study
Mark
Performance Standard
Unacceptable level of achievement ? minimal or no evidence of understanding of theory
Some level of achievement ? some minimal evidence of understanding of theory
Acceptable level of achievement ? meets minimal requirements
High level of achievement – displays the application of theory
Exceptional ? displays the application of theory to a very high level
Case study context and problem identification
/2
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 No real evidence of understanding the case study within the context of a body of knowledge and the principal issues requiring solutions Some minimal evidence of understanding the case study within the context of a body of knowledge and the principal issues requiring solutions Adequate evidence of understanding the case study within the context of a body of knowledge and the principal issues requiring solutions High level of ability of understanding the within the context of a body of knowledge and the principal issues requiring solutions Very high level of understanding the case study within the context of a body of knowledge and the principal issues requiring solutions
Depth of research
/4
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 No real evidence of research underpinning the case study Some minimal evidence of research Adequate evidence of appropriate research. High level of research ? goes beyond prescribed readings Very high level of research – goes beyond prescribed readings and applied creatively
Analysis & synthesis
/6
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 Very little or no evidence of understanding of the topic Some understanding of the topic evident but with little evidence of analysis Adequate evidence of ability to comprehend case supported by analysis of issues Good understanding of the topic with evidence of deep analysis and synthesis of information Very high level of understanding with insightful evaluative comments and analysis
Organisation
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 No clear Some solutions Adequate Well-presented Exceptionally
5
of arguments and solutions
/6 hierarchy of arguments or solutions provided
backed by arguments presented but not particularly clear or relevant
solutions presented backed by well- presented arguments
arguments and solutions? will lead to relevant resolutions
well argued solutions? clear, concise and particularly insightful
Writing style & grammar or structural issues in written material
/2
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 Very poor grammatical expression and spelling errors Low levels of writing ability evident, simple expression with many spelling and grammatical errors Average levels of writing ability with some spelling and grammatical errors High level of writing ability ? clear concise expression with few grammatical or spelling inaccuracies Very high level of writing ability with no grammatical or spelling errors.
Total Marks and Feedback
/20
Good Points
Areas of improvement
Presentation marking rubric Presenters: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Date/Time: Assessment Criteria and Performance Standards for Presentations
Assessment criteria Mark
Performance Standard
Low level of knowledge and understanding evident or demonstrated
Limited level of knowledge and understanding evident or demonstrated
Acceptable level of knowledge and understanding evident or demonstrated
High level of knowledge and understanding evident and demonstrated
Exceptional level of knowledge and understanding evident and demonstrated
Theoretical overview and application
/2
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 No clear evidence of understanding or knowledge of the theory Some evidence of understanding of the theoretical applications but lacks clarity Good level of understanding of theoretical applications, clearly demonstrated High level of understanding of theoretical applications, clearly demonstrated Very high level of understanding of theoretical applications clearly demonstrated and articulated; easily understood by participants 0 – 1 2 3 4 5
6
Depth of research
/2 No clear evidence of any research
Some evidence of research demonstrated
Evidence of adequate research
Evidence of high level of research and
Very high level analysis and research clearly
analysis integrated in presentation
analysis integrated in presentation
demonstrated and integrated
Presentation structure, delivery and audience engagement
/2
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 Poor; presented without structure with unclear voice, no eye contact, no audience engagement, and no evidence of rehearsal Low; presentation lacks strong structure with little or no audience engagement, limited eye contact, and limited evidence of rehearsal Good; presentation structured with attempts to engage audience, good eye contact, and evidence of rehearsal with good flow Very good; structured, clear presentation, easy to understand with some audience participation, good eye contact, and evidence of rehearsal with logical flow Excellent; structured, clear presentation, easy to understand with engaged audience, good eye contact, and evidence of rehearsal with clear, logical flow
Presentation aids and creativity
/2
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 No use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids with poor visibility Poor creativity and limited use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids Evidence of some creativity with good use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids but limited and could be better developed Very creative use of resources very good use of colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids to facilitate audience understanding Original and outstanding exhibition of creativity with excellent use colours, fonts, media, special effects or other presentation aids to facilitate audience understanding
Timing of Presentation
/1
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 Poor use of available time leading to incomplete presentation or finishing too early Limited use of available time, needs improvement Good use of available time but limited and could be better managed Very good use of available time to facilitate audience understanding Excellent use of available time to facilitate audience engagement and understanding
Responses to questions
/1
0 – 1 2 3 4 5 Poor ? none or few questions solicited, little audience engagement Some questions posed but responses vague, unclear or confusing Questions posed with adequate but limited responses All questions answered clearly and confidently Audience fully engaged ? all questions answered clearly and concisely with additional information provided with confidence Good Points
7
Total Marks and Feedback
/10
Areas of improvement
End of Assignment Details
1
Integrative Case Study Health or Safety in the Workplace?
THE PROBLEM
In 2003, road workers in the Queensland Department of Main Roads, a government department responsible for the construction and maintenance of the state?s road network, objected to being required to work in long trousers and shirts with long sleeves. According to the road workers, ?Anyone that has spent a day outdoors in the heat of a summer?s day knows that wearing long sleeves to do physical work is unbearable and will eventuate into an additional occupational health and safety risk due to heat stress. It is simply too hot.? It all began when the department decided that it needed to change the culture of the department to a safety culture. This new focus on safety meant that new guidelines and policies were constantly being implemented to ensure safety, and information sessions were used to introduce new safety procedures. One consequence of the desire not to delay the new safety protocols was that there was no consultation about the policies and as a result some of the new protocols clashed with others. For instance, to address the risk of skin cancer, a policy was mandated that all employees were to wear long trousers and long-sleeved shirts while engaging in outside work. The policy, however, did not address the immediate short-term health risk of heat stress in summer.
THE DEPARTMENT
From the perspective of the Department of Main Roads there were good reasons for requiring the change in the dress standards. This issue was only one of many safety issues addressed at the time. Recurring at-risk behaviours resulting in incidents, injuries and near- misses are an ongoing issue within the construction industry, and, as a leading employer within the construction industry and a public
2
sector agency, it is important that the department has a major focus on safety in the workplace. Main Roads has a workforce of approximately 5000 workers who are employed on a full-time or a casual basis. The workers are employed as engineers, clerical staff, trades staff and labouring staff, working in state-wide groups, districts and commercial units.
The Department of Main Roads is a stable, bureaucratic organisation with centralised policy development and resource allocation units. It operates within a hierarchical management structure, but also embraces various matrix structures, particularly in relation to its project activities. On its website, the department states that it works cooperatively with other government departments to implement the government?s policy agenda, which in turn is informed through consultation with stakeholders and external agencies and in accordance with national and international regulations and standards. One external agency that the department works with is the Cancer Council. The Cancer Council makes recommendations regarding various sun-safe strategies that workplaces can adopt to improve the detection and prevention of skin cancer in the workplace.
The decision to mandate that workers wear long-sleeved shirts and long trousers was based on the advice of the World Health Organisation, which provided figures showing that Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world; more than 380 000 people are treated for the disease every year. Each year more than 34 000 workers are believed to suffer skin cancers from working in the sun, including 200 who contract melanomas. According to the Cancer Council, all workplaces should adopt an ultraviolet (UV) radiation protection program, a comprehensive policy and strategy for the early detection and prevention of skin cancer in the workplace. Construction workers have a higher risk of skin cancer than many other workers due to the long periods they are exposed to UV
3
radiation from direct sunlight and to UV rays that reflect off surfaces such as concrete.
THE CULTURE
Overall, the Department of Main Roads has a positive organisational culture that seeks to protect its workers and minimise risks where possible. This is a culture shared across government departments and is led by the agency responsible for workplace health and safety. However, culture, can vary at different levels of an organisation. Within each department there are subcultures that share other core values and exhibit norms of behaviour that stem from its connections with industry and past customs and practices. This is typified by the road worker in the construction industry who stated that a tradition of outside workers is that ?as soon as the sun comes out you take your shirt off ?.
To combat this and other recurring at-risk behaviours, the Department of Main Roads endorsed a new strategy to improve the safety culture of the department. A Safety Leaders Group was created whose role was to influence and promote broad staff behaviours that are vital to the development of a positive safety culture. This included:
? clarifying required and expected behaviours
? owning safety responsibility
? empowering others to challenge at-risk behaviours by engaging the right people in hazard identification and risk assessments
? encouraging everyone to think, behave and operate in a safe manner at all times.
The decision to ensure that dress standards were amended to incorporate more protective clothing had an unintended effect on a specific subculture of workers. In a bureaucratic organisation, one of the few controls that workers have is over their immediate
4
environment and the way in which they work. Implementing this ruling had the effect of decreasing the small amount of autonomy road workers had; they were no longer able to decide for themselves what they wore to work and how to manage the threat of heat stress on hot days.
THE CHANGE
The decision was relayed to the workforce through a series of meetings that focused on a range of occupational health and safety issues. Factors involved in the workers? resistance to change included industry norms where changes to the work environment are often seen as an imposition of the power of management and an attack on the autonomy of workers. The department conceded that control processes for heat stress had not been developed and none had been put in place. This type of action was interpreted by workers as management being concerned with minimising the risk of long-term compensation claims but not with the health of workers on a day-to- day basis.
A key driver in the support of this change to a safety-focused culture was the commitment of senior leaders across the department in demonstrating and encouraging desired safety behaviours within their business units. The general safety policy that was implemented required consultation with staff and other agencies prior to the implementation of new protocols. Managers felt that information sessions about the new dress standards would be sufficient to implement the policy. This meant that other measures that could have been used to address the risk of sun exposure were not explored. These include the provision of a quality sunscreen, considering whether the task could be done at another time when there is lower sun exposure, or providing portable sunshades for various worksites, particularly where work needs to be conducted in the middle of the day.
5
An important issue in ensuring that a safety culture is embraced by workers is that workers need to be consulted in determining the health and safety controls to be implemented in local workplaces. This, in addition to the support of senior leaders, will lead to the full adoption of workplace initiatives. By empowering workers to locally manage their health and safety issues and working in a cooperative way, the needs of all parties can be addressed. According to Work Cover business advisory officers, ?Health and safety at work is everyone?s concern. Together, workers and employers can use simple strategies and safety equipment to protect themselves when working in the sun.? As indicated in Chapter 16, control and social support both have a moderating effect on the experience of stress. Implementing programs that incorporate control but have a negative effect on the perception of social support, particularly between supervisors and workers,can be self-defeating, as the Department of Main Roads found out in this situation.
Through addressing these and other issues, the department wants to be seen as an industry leader in implementing safety policies. It is envisaged that the safety leadership approach will be adopted by other construction bodies and provide a consistent standard to improve safety competency across the industry.
Case Questions for Major Assignment
1. What are some of the ways the department could have overcome the resistance of workers to the change? 2. What were the outside drivers of change and who were the change agents in this scenario? 3. What were some of the functional and dysfunctional effects of organisational culture on the people and the organisation in this situation?
6
4. Based on the description in the case study, would you consider that the department has a mechanistic organisational design or an organic organisational design? 5. What would the reduction in the autonomy of workers do for their job satisfaction? 6. How would you have improved the implementation of this policy?
End of Case

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"