Final Exam Mgt 3030

1. The final exam will require written/essay answers based on THREE of the following scenarios. You will be provided with clean copies of the scenarios for the exam. 2. Questions will be graded on the thoroughness of the answer. The grading rubric is attached to this document. Each scenario has equal weight. 3. I will be available, during office hours or by appointment, to support your study process. This support will be limited to helping you understand the course concepts and theory. I cannot answer questions directly related to the scenarios or how the theories could be directly applied to these scenarios. 4. You are encouraged to prepare for this exam with your colleagues, e.g. your assigned work group. Feel free to discuss the scenarios and your approaches with your classmates. The actual exam, however, is to be an individual effort. Any incidence of cheating will receive in an automatic F in the course. 5. This will be a closed book exam. No course materials, including your working copies of these scenarios, will be permitted into the exam room. (Binders, book bags, etc. will be left at the front of the exam room for collection after the exam is completed.) No electronics (headphones, Palmpilots etc.) are permitted. 6. As this is a closed book exam and access to your references/sources (text, lecture notes) are not available, you will not be expected to cite your sources on the final exam. Hints: Evidence of critical thinking will be rewarded. Do not limit your answer to repetition of the course material. Make sure that you link theory to the scenarios. Where applicable, use multiple theories to examine the dynamics of the scenario. If asked to discuss power and politics, for example, do not discuss only one type of power. Remember that although the text and lectures treated many concepts as discrete units (for example the chapter on diversity) that many of the concepts are also interwoven throughout the text (diversity, for example, is also discussed in job design and other units.) Although the scenarios provide sufficient depth of content to answer the questions, you may make assumptions about material not explicitly presented. You are encouraged to do so, however, you must state these assumptions explicitly ( a list entitled assumptions may be helpful or statements beginning assuming that). Further, these assumptions may not contradict information presented in the case itself. Spelling and grammar are important to ensure that your points are understood. If I cant understand what you have written, I cannot assess your knowledge on the course content.

Scenario 1: Rough Seas on the LINK650

Professor Suzanne Baxter was preparing for her first class of the semester when Shaun O'Neill knocked lightly on the open door and announced himself: "Hi, Professor, I don't suppose you remember me?" Professor Baxter had large classes, but she did remember that Shaun was a student in her organizational behaviour class two years earlier. Shaun had decided to work in the oil industry for a couple of years before returning to school to complete his diploma. "Welcome back!" Baxter said as she beckoned him into the office. "I heard you were on an East coast oil rig. How was it?" "Well, Professor," Shaun began, "I had worked two summers in Alberta's oil fields, so I hoped to get a job on the LINK650, the new CanOil drilling rig that arrived with so much fanfare in St. John's two years ago. The LINK650 was built by LINK, Inc., in Dallas, Texas. A standard practice in this industry is for the rig manufacturer to manage its day-to-day operations, so employees on the LINK650 are managed completely by LINK managers with no involvement from CanOil. No one has forgotten the Ocean Ranger tragedy, but drilling rig jobs pay well and offer generous time off. The newspaper said that nearly one thousand people lined up to complete job applications for the 50 nontechnical positions. I was lucky enough to get one of those jobs. "Everyone hired on the LINK650 was enthusiastic and proud. We were one of the chosen few and were really pumped up about working on a new rig that had received so much media attention. I was quite impressed---so were several other hires---with the recruiters because they really seemed to be concerned about our welfare out at sea. I later discovered that the recruiters came from a consulting firm that specializes in hiring people. Come to think of it, we didn't meet a single LINK manager during that process. Maybe things would have been different if some of those LINK supervisors had interviewed us. "Working on LINK650 was a real shock, even though most of us had some experience working along the Newfoundland coast. I'd say that none of the 50 nontechnical people hired in St. John's was quite prepared for the brutal jobs on the oil rig. We did the dirtiest jobs in the biting cold winds of the North Atlantic. Still, during the first few months most of us wanted to show the company that we were dedicated to getting the job done. A couple of the new hires quit within a few weeks, but most of the people hired in St. John's really got along well---you know, just like the ideas you mentioned in class. We formed a special bond that helped us through the bad weather and grueling work. "The LINK650 supervisors were another matter. They were tough SOBs who had worked for many years on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea. They seemed to relish the idea of treating their employees the same way they had been treated before becoming managers. We put up with their abuse for the first few months, but things got worse when the LINK650 was brought into port twice to correct mechanical problems. These setbacks embarrassed LINK's management and they put more pressure on the supervisors to get us back on schedule. "The supervisors started to ignore equipment problems and pushed us to get jobs done more quickly without regard to safety procedures. They routinely shouted obscenities at employees in front of others. Several of my work mates were fired and a few more quit their jobs. I almost lost my job one day just because my boss thought I could secure a fitting faster. Several people started finding ways to avoid the supervisors and get as little work done as possible. Many of my

co-workers developed back problems. We jokingly called it the `Hibernia backache' because some employees faked their ailment to leave the rig with paid sick leave. "On top of the lousy supervisors, we were always kept in the dark about the problems on the rig. Supervisors said that they didn't know anything, which was partly true, but they said we shouldn't be so interested in things that didn't concern us. But the rig's problems, as well as its future contract work, were a major concern to crew members who weren't ready to quit. Their job security depended on the rig's production levels and whether CanOil would sign contracts to drill new holes. Given the rig's problems, most of us were concerned that we would be laid off at any time. "Everything came to a head when Bob MacKenzie was killed because someone secured a hoist improperly. You probably read about it in the papers around this time last year. The government inquiry concluded that the person responsible wasn't properly trained and that employees were being pushed to finish jobs without safety precautions. Anyway, while the inquiry was going on, several employees decided to call the Seafarers International Union to unionize the rig. It wasn't long before most employees on LINK650 had signed union cards. That really shocked LINK's management and the entire oil industry because it was, I think, just the second time that a rig had ever been unionized in Canada. "Since then, management has been doing everything in its power to get rid of the union. It sent a `safety officer' to the rig, although we eventually realized that he was a consultant the company hired to undermine union support. One safety meeting with compulsory attendance of all crew members involved watching a video describing the international union president's association with organized crime. Several managers were sent to special seminars on how to manage under a union work force, although one of the topics was how to break the union. The guys who initiated the organizing drive were either fired or given undesirable jobs. LINK even paid one employee to challenge the union certification vote. The labour board rejected the decertification request because it discovered the company's union-busting tactics. Last month, the labour board ordered LINK to negotiate a first contract in good faith. "So you see, Professor, I joined LINK as an enthusiastic employee and quit last month with no desire to lift a finger for them. It really bothers me, because I was always told to do your best, no matter how tough the situation. It's been quite an experience." Scenario 1: 1. Use job satisfaction and organizational commitment to analyze what happened on the LINK 650. (include but do not limit your discussion to the reasons for job dissatisfaction as well as ways it was expressed on LINK650). 2. Use motivation theory to analyze this case. 3. You have been asked to assume leadership in this company. Based on your answers to Q1 and Q2, what actions would you take to remedy this situation? (Be sure to support your answer with relevant theory.)

Scenario 2: Spooked by Computers

The New England Arts Project had its headquarters above an Italian restaurant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The project had five full-time employees, and during busy times of the year, particularly the month before Christmas, it hired as many as six part-time workers to type, address envelopes, and send out mailings. Although each of the five full-timers had a title and a formal job description, an observer would have had trouble telling their positions apart. Suzanne Clammer, for instance, was the executive director, the head of the office, but she could be found typing or licking envelopes just as often as Martin Welk, who had been working for less than a year as office coordinator, the lowest position in the projects hierarchy. Despite a constant sense of being a month behind, the office ran relatively smoothly. No outsider would have had a prayer of finding a mailing list or a budget in the office, but project employees knew where almost everything was, and after a quiet fall they did not mind having their small space packed with workers in November. But a number of the federal funding agencies on which the project relied began to grumble about the cost of the part-time workers, the amount of time the project spent handling routine paperwork, and the chaotic condition of its financial records. The pressure to make a radical change was on. Finally Martin Welk said it: "Maybe we should get a computer." To Welk, fresh out of college, where he had written his papers on a word processor, computers were just another tool to make a job easier. But his belief was not shared by the others in the office, the youngest of whom had fifteen years more seniority than he. A computer would eat the projects mailing list, they said, destroying any chance of raising funds for the year. It would send the wrong things to the wrong people, insulting them and convincing them that the project had become another faceless organization that did not care. They swapped horror stories about computers that had charged them thousands of dollars for purchases they had never made or had assigned the same airplane seat to five people. "Well lose all control," Suzanne Clammer complained. She saw some kind of office automation as inevitable, yet she kept thinking she would probably quit before it came about. She liked hand-addressing mailings to arts patrons whom she had met, and she felt sure that the recipients contributed more because they recognized her neat blue printing. She remembered the agonies of typing class in high school and believed she was too old to take on something new and bound to be much more confusing. Two other employees, with whom she had worked for a decade, called her after work to ask if the prospect of a computer in the office meant they should be looking for other jobs. "I have enough trouble with English grammar," one of them wailed. "Ill never be able to learn computer language." One morning Clammer called Martin Welk into her office, shut the door, and asked him if he could recommend any computer consultants. She had read an article that explained how a company could waste thousands of dollars by adopting integrated office automation in the wrong way, and she figured the project would have to hire somebody for at least six months to get the new machines working and to teach the staff how to use them. Welk was pleased because Clammer evidently had accepted the idea of a computer in the office. But he also realized that as the resident authority on computers, he had a lot of work to do before they went shopping for machines. 1. Analyze this case using organizational change/organizational development theories. 2. What can Martin Welk do to overcome the resistance (make sure that you support your answer with relevant theory)?

Scenario 3: Right Boss, Wrong Company

Betty Kesmer was continuously on top of things. In school, she had always been at the top of her class. When she went to work for her uncles shoe business, Fancy Footwear, she had been singled out as the most productive employee and the one with the best attendance. The company was so impressed with her that it sent her to get an M.B.A. to groom her for a top management position. In school again, and with three years of practical experience to draw on, Kesmer had gobbled up every idea put in front of her, relating many of them to her work at Fancy Footwear. When Kesmer graduated at the top of her class, she returned to Fancy Footwear. To no ones surprise, when the head of the companys largest division took advantage of the firms early retirement plan, Kesmer was given his position. Kesmer knew the pitfalls of being suddenly catapulted to a leadership position, and she was determined to avoid them. In business school, she had read cases about family businesses that fell apart when a young family member took over with an iron fist, barking out orders, cutting personnel, and destroying morale. Kesmer knew a lot about participative management, and she was not going to be labeled an arrogant know-it-all. Kesmers predecessor, Max Worthy, had run the division from an office at the top of the building, far above the factory floor. Two or three times a day, Worthy would summon a messenger or a secretary from the offices on the second floor and send a memo out to one or another group of workers. But as Kesmer saw it, Worthy was mostly an absentee autocrat, making all the decisions from above and spending most of his time at extended lunches with his friends from the Elks Club. Kesmers first move was to change all that. She set up her office on the second floor. From her always-open doorway she could see down onto the factory floor, and as she sat behind her desk she could spot anyone walking by in the hall. She never ate lunch herself but spent the time from 11 to 2 down on the floor, walking around, talking, and organizing groups. The workers, many of whom had twenty years of seniority at the plant, seemed surprised by this new policy and reluctant to volunteer for any groups. But in fairly short order, Kesmer established a worker productivity group, a "Suggestion of the Week" committee, an environmental group, a worker award group, and a management relations group. Each group held two meetings a week, one without and one with Kesmer. She encouraged each group to set up goals in its particular focus area and develop plans for reaching those goals. She promised any support that was within her power to give. The group work was agonizingly slow at first. But Kesmer had been well trained as a facilitator, and she soon took on that role in their meetings, writing down ideas on a big board, organizing them, and later communicating them in notices to other employees. She got everyone to call her "Betty" and set herself the task of learning all their names. By the end of the first month, Fancy Footwear was stirred up. But as it turned out, that was the last thing most employees wanted. The truth finally hit Kesmer when the entire management relations committee resigned at the start of their fourth meeting. "Im sorry, Ms. Kesmer," one of them said. "Were good at making shoes, but not at this management stuff. A lot of us are heading toward retirement. We dont want to be supervisors." Astonished, Kesmer went to talk to the workers with whom she believed she had built good relations. Yes, they reluctantly told her, all these changes did make them uneasy. They liked her,

and they didnt want to complain. But given the choice, they would rather go back to the way Mr. Worthy had run things. They never saw Mr. Worthy much, but he never got in their hair. He did his work, whatever that was, and they did theirs. "After youve been in a place doing one thing for so long," one worker concluded, "the last thing you want to do is learn a new way of doing it." Questions: 1. Analyze this case using job design. 2. Analyze this case using leadership theories. 3. Analyze this case using organizational culture. 4. Based on your answers to Q1, Q2, Q3: Could Kesmer have instituted her changes without eliciting a negative reaction from the workers? If so, how?

Scenario 4: Cantron Ltd.

Cantron Ltd., a Canadian manufacturer of centralized vacuum systems, was facing severe cash flow problems due to increasing demand for its products and rapid expansion of production facilities. Steve Heinrich, Cantron's founder and majority shareholder, flew to Germany to meet with management of Rohrtech Gmb to discuss the German company's willingness to become majority shareholder of Cantron in exchange for an infusion of much-needed cash. A deal was struck whereby Rohrtech would become majority shareholder while Heinrich would remain as Cantron's president and general manager. One of Rohrtech's senior executives would become the chairperson of Cantron's board of directors, and Rohrtech would appoint two other board members. This relationship worked well until Rohrtech was acquired by a European conglomerate a couple of years later and the new owner wanted more precise financial information and controls placed on its holdings, including Cantron. Heinrich resented this imposition and refused to provide the necessary information. Within another two years, relations between Rohrtech and Cantron had soured to the point where Heinrich refused to let Rohrtech representatives into the Cantron plant. He also instituted legal proceedings to regain control of the company. According to Canadian law, any party who possesses over two-thirds of a company's shares may force the others to sell their shares. Heinrich owned 29 percent of Cantron's shares, whereas Rohrtech owned 56 percent. The remaining 15 percent of Cantron shares were held by Jean Parrot, Cantron's head of operations in Quebec. Parrot was a long-time manager at Cantron and remained on the sidelines throughout most of the legal battle between Rohrtech and Heinrich. However, Parrot finally agreed to sell his shares to Rohrtech, thereby legally forcing Heinrich to give up his shares. When Heinrich's bid for control failed, Rohrtech purchased all remaining shares and Cantron's board of directors (now dominated by Rohrtech) dismissed Heinrich as president and general manager a month later. The board immediately appointed Parrot as Cantron's new president.

Searching for a New General Manager

Several months before Heinrichs departure, the chairman of Cantron's board of directors received instructions from Rohrtech to hire a management consulting firm in Toronto to identify possible outside candidates for the position of general manager at Cantron. The successful candidate would be hired after the conflict with Heinrich had ended (presumably with Heinrich's departure). The general manager would report to the president (the person eventually replacing Heinrich) and would be responsible for day-to-day management of the company. Rohrtech's management correctly believed that most of Cantron's current managers were loyal to Heinrich and, by hiring an outsider, the German firm would gain more inside control over its Canadian subsidiary. Over 50 candidates applied for the general manager position, and three candidates were interviewed by Cantron's chairman and another Rohrtech representative. One of these candidates, Kurt Devine, was vice-president of sales at an industrial packaging firm in Toronto and, at 52

years old, was looking for one more career challenge before retirement. The Rohrtech representatives explained the current situation and said that they were offering stable employment after the problem with Heinrich was resolved so that the general manager could help settle Cantron's problems. When Devine expressed his concern about rivalry with internal candidates, the senior Rohrtech manager stated: "We have a bookkeeper, but he is not our choice. The sales manager is capable, but he is located in New York and doesn't want to move to Canada." One week after Heinrich's dismissal and the appointment of Parrot as president, Cantron's chairman invited Devine to a meeting at a posh Toronto hotel attended by the chairman, another Rohrtech manager on Cantron's board of directors, and Parrot. The chairman explained the recent events at Cantron and formally invited Devine to accept the position of vice-president and general manager of the company. After discussing salary and details about job duties, Devine asked the others whether he had their support as well as the support of Cantron's employees. The two Rohrtech representatives said "Yes," while Parrot remained silent. When the chairman left the room to get a bottle of wine to toast the new general manager, Devine asked Parrot how long he had known about the decision to hire him. Parrot replied, "Just last week when I became president. I was surprised . . . I don't think I would have hired you."

Confrontation with Tom O'Grady

Devine began work at Cantron in early November and, within a few weeks, noticed that the president and two other Cantron managers were not giving him the support he needed to accomplish his work. For example, Parrot would call the salespeople almost daily, yet rarely speak with Devine unless the general manager approached him first. The vice-president of sales acted cautiously toward Devine. But it was Tom O'Grady, the vice-president of finance and administration, who seemed to resent Devine's presence the most. O'Grady had been promoted from the position of controller in October and now held the highest rank at Cantron below Devine. After Heinrich was dismissed, Cantron's board of directors had placed O'Grady in charge of day-to-day operations until Devine took over. Devine depended on O'Grady for information because he had more knowledge than anyone else about many aspects of the business outside of Quebec. However, O'Grady provided incomplete information on many occasions and would completely refuse to educate the general manager on some matters. O'Grady was also quick to criticize many of Devine's decisions and made indirect statements to Devine about his inappropriateness as a general manager. He also mentioned how he and other Cantron managers didn't want the German company (Rohrtech) to interfere with their company. Devine would later learn about other things O'Grady had said and done to undermine his position. For example, O'Grady actively spoke to office staff and other managers about the problems with Devine, and encouraged them to tell the president about their concerns. Devine overhead O'Grady telling another manager that Devine's memoranda were a "complete joke" and that "Devine didn't know what he was talking about." On one occasion, O'Grady let Devine send out incorrect information about the organization's structure even though O'Grady knew that it was incorrect "just to prove what an idiot Rohrtech had hired."

Just six weeks after joining Cantron, Devine confronted O'Grady with his concerns. O'Grady was quite candid with the general manager, saying that everyone felt that Devine was a "plant" by Rohrtech and was trying to turn Cantron into a branch office of the German company. He said that some employees would quit if Devine did not leave because they wanted Cantron to maintain its independence from Rohrtech. In a later meeting with Devine and Parrot, O'Grady repeated these points and added that Devine's management style was not appropriate for Cantron. Devine responded that he had not received any support from Cantron since the day he had arrived, even though Rohrtech had sent explicit directions to Parrot and other Cantron managers that he was to have complete support in managing the company's daily operations. Parrot told the two men that they should work together and that, of course, Devine was the more senior person.

Decision by Cantron's Board of Directors

As a member of Cantron's board of directors, Parrot ensured that the matter of Devine was discussed and that the board invite O'Grady to repeat his story. Based on this testimony, the board decided to remove Devine from the general manager job and give him a special project instead. O'Grady was immediately named acting general manager. The chairman and other Rohrtech representatives on Cantron's board were disappointed that events did not unfold as they had hoped, but they agreed to remove Devine rather than face the mass exodus of Cantron managers that Parrot and O'Grady had warned about. Less than one year after his appointment, Devine attended a morning meeting of Cantron's board of directors to present his interim report on the special project. The board agreed to give Devine until mid-June to complete the project. However, the board recalled Devine into the boardroom in the afternoon and Parrot bluntly asked Devine why he didn't turn in his resignation. Devine replied: "I can't think of a single reason why I should. I will not resign. I joined your company six months ago as a challenge. I have not been allowed to do my job. My decision to come here was based on support from Rohrtech and on a great product." The next day, Parrot came to Devine's office with a letter of dismissal signed by the chairman of Cantron's board of directors. Scenario 4 questions: 1. 2. Analyze this case using theory related to the use of power, politics and impression management. (Be sure to include the role of information in this case). Applying your knowledge of power, politics and impression management, what would you have done differently after Heinrich left the company

Scenario 5: Steelfab Ltd.

Jackie Ney was an enthusiastic employee when she began working in the accounting department at Steelfab Ltd. In particular, she prided herself on discovering better ways of handling invoice and requisition flows. The company had plenty of bottlenecks in the flow of paperwork throughout the organization and Jackie had made several recommendations to her boss, Mr. Johnston, that would improve the process. Mr. Johnston acknowledged these suggestions and even implemented a few, but he didn't seem to have enough time to either thank her or explain why some suggestions could not be implemented. In fact, Mr. Johnston didn't say much to any of the other employees in the department about anything they did. At the end of the first year, Jackie received a 6 percent merit increase based on Mr. Johnston's evaluation of her performance. This increase was equal to the average merit increase among the 11 people in the accounting department and was above the inflation rate. Still, Jackie was frustrated by the fact that she didn't know how to improve her chances of a higher merit increase the next year. She was also upset by the fact that another new employee, Jim Sandu, received the highest pay increase (10 percent) even though he was not regarded by others in the finance department as a particularly outstanding performer. According to others who worked with him on some assignments, Jim lacked the skills to perform the job well enough to receive such a high reward. However, Jim Sandu had become a favoured employee to Mr. Johnston and they had even gone on a fishing trip together. Jackie's enthusiasm toward Steelfab Ltd. fell dramatically during her second year of employment. She still enjoyed the work and made friends with some of her co-workers, but the spirit that had once carried her through the morning rush hour traffic had somehow dwindled. Eventually, Jackie stopped mentioning her productivity improvement ideas. On two occasions during her second year of employment, she took a few days of sick leave to visit friends and family in New Brunswick. She had used only two sick days during her first year and these were for a legitimate illness. Even her doctor had to urge Jackie to stay at home on one occasion. But by the end of the second year, using sick days seemed to "justify" Jackie's continued employment at Steelfab Ltd. Now, as her second annual merit increase approached, Jackie started to seriously scout around for another job. Scenario 5 questions

Questions
1. Use motivation theory to analyze what happened in this case. 2. What actions should the organization take to correct these problems?

Scenario 6: Right Boss, Wrong Company

Betty Kesmer was continuously on top of things. In school, she had always been at the top of her class. When she went to work for her uncles shoe business, Fancy Footwear, she had been singled out as the most productive employee and the one with the best attendance. The company was so impressed with her that it sent her to get an M.B.A. to groom her for a top management position. In school again, and with three years of practical experience to draw on, Kesmer had gobbled up every idea put in front of her, relating many of them to her work at Fancy Footwear. When Kesmer graduated at the top of her class, she returned to Fancy Footwear. To no ones surprise, when the head of the companys largest division took advantage of the firms early retirement plan, Kesmer was given his position. Kesmer knew the pitfalls of being suddenly catapulted to a leadership position, and she was determined to avoid them. In business school, she had read cases about family businesses that fell apart when a young family member took over with an iron fist, barking out orders, cutting personnel, and destroying morale. Kesmer knew a lot about participative management, and she was not going to be labeled an arrogant know-it-all. Kesmers predecessor, Max Worthy, had run the division from an office at the top of the building, far above the factory floor. Two or three times a day, Worthy would summon a messenger or a secretary from the offices on the second floor and send a memo out to one or another group of workers. But as Kesmer saw it, Worthy was mostly an absentee autocrat, making all the decisions from above and spending most of his time at extended lunches with his friends from the Elks Club. Kesmers first move was to change all that. She set up her office on the second floor. From her always-open doorway she could see down onto the factory floor, and as she sat behind her desk she could spot anyone walking by in the hall. She never ate lunch herself but spent the time from 11 to 2 down on the floor, walking around, talking, and organizing groups. The workers, many of whom had twenty years of seniority at the plant, seemed surprised by this new policy and reluctant to volunteer for any groups. But in fairly short order, Kesmer established a worker productivity group, a "Suggestion of the Week" committee, an environmental group, a worker award group, and a management relations group. Each group held two meetings a week, one without and one with Kesmer. She encouraged each group to set up goals in its particular focus area and develop plans for reaching those goals. She promised any support that was within her power to give. The group work was agonizingly slow at first. But Kesmer had been well trained as a facilitator, and she soon took on that role in their meetings, writing down ideas on a big board, organizing them, and later communicating them in notices to other employees. She got everyone to call her "Betty" and set herself the task of learning all their names. By the end of the first month, Fancy Footwear was stirred up. But as it turned out, that was the last thing most employees wanted. The truth finally hit Kesmer when the entire management relations committee resigned at the start of their fourth meeting. "Im sorry, Ms. Kesmer," one of them said. "Were good at making shoes, but not at this management stuff. A lot of us are heading toward retirement. We dont want to be supervisors." Astonished, Kesmer went to talk to the workers with whom she believed she had built good relations. Yes, they reluctantly told her, all these changes did make them uneasy. They liked her,

and they didnt want to complain. But given the choice, they would rather go back to the way Mr. Worthy had run things. They never saw Mr. Worthy much, but he never got in their hair. He did his work, whatever that was, and they did theirs. "After youve been in a place doing one thing for so long," one worker concluded, "the last thing you want to do is learn a new way of doing it." Scenario 6 Questions 1. Analyze this case using job design. 2. Analyze this case using leadership theories. 3. Analyze this case using organizational culture. 4. Based on your answers to Q1, Q2, Q3: Could Kesmer have instituted her changes without eliciting a negative reaction from the workers? If so, how?

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING FINAL EXAM

A - EXCELLENT (85 - 100) - A Markedly Exceptional Performance originality, insight, and creativity are demonstrated; the answer goes beyond repeating what others have said and contributes something new to our understanding of the topic a comprehensive grasp of the subject matter is demonstrated, including an in-depth understanding of the relevant concepts, theories, and issues related to the topic addressed an ability to think critically is demonstrated in the analysis, synthesis and evaluation of relevant information a clear, fluent, and concise style highlights a well-written, tightly argued, and logically structured answer B - SUPERIOR (70 - 84) - Clearly Above Average Performance a thorough grasp of the subject matter is demonstrated the answer goes beyond description to interpretation, analysis, synthesis and evaluation builds a clear argument/position a clear style which communicates well C - SATISFACTORY (55 - 69) - A Fully Competent Answer a basic grasp of the subject matter is demonstrated accurate information is conveyed a position is adopted and logically argued an adequate attempt at analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation is evident an acceptable style D - POOR (40 - 54) - A Marginally Acceptable Answer a lack of familiarity with the subject matter is demonstrated through the omission of key material, or through the misinterpretation of important concepts, theories or issues a lack of critical thinking is evident in an answer which is more descriptive than interpretive; or in which the analysis and synthesis are logically flawed; or in which there is a reliance on assertion a position is not taken, is hard to determine, or is inconsistent with arguments or information presented in the answer written expression requires improvement in basic communication skills. Understanding of paper is compromised by written expression. F - FAILING (0 - 39) - An Unacceptable Performance a basic lack of understanding of the subject matter is demonstrated through gross misinterpretation or omissions there is little attempt to go beyond description; or interpretation and analysis demonstrates gross error in logic or supporting detail; or little or no factual material is presented; or material presented contains gross factual error; or is completely irrelevant written expression is disorganized, incoherent, poorly expressed, and contains unacceptably frequent or serious errors in grammar, sentence structure, and spelling. Understanding of paper is seriously compromised by written expression.