This project was designed to have you demonstrate an understanding of how the role organizational theory applies to management. Furthermore, the student will demonstrate this understanding by explaining the evolution of management theory and how it relates to the business environment through the use of a case scenario.
In week 1, you learned that Organizational Theory stemmed from various schools of thought with theorists who were categorized under the various schools of thought. Theorists proposed many different theories related to management.
In this project, you will use all of the course material from week 1 to determine the different schools of thought, the theorists and theories. You will research the various schools of thoughts and theorists identified in the Timeline under week 1. The timeline is only a guide and cannot be your main or only source in completing this project.
In answering the questions, it is necessary to support your reasoning, which means you will explain ‘why and how’ rather than relying on statements.
Skill Building:
You are also completing this project to help you develop critical thinking and assessing and applying organizational theory concepts.
Skills: Critical Thinking, Writing
Outcome Met by Completing This Assignment
Integrate management principles into management practices
Instructions:
Read critically and analyze the following scenario:
Geraldine Barney Garrett, the granddaughter of Wilford Barney took over the reins of the R&D department of Biotech Health and Life Products (Biotech) in 1965. She had trained at the hands of her grandmother Wilford’s mother, Maria. Geraldine was a strong manager and developed the Research and Development (R&D) lab from the advanced kitchen of her grandmother to the scientific lab of her peers. Geraldine’s management philosophy evolved over the years but she had several basic ideas that kept her grounded. Geraldine knew she had to answer to the family in every decision she made. Her grandmother stressed this point and she eventually came to agree. Therefore, Geraldine had final say on decisions. She also realized that her employees had good ideas and talent but they did not bear the responsibility she did. So, although she consulted with the employees often, she never gave them the power to make important decisions.
Geraldine was charismatic in a motherly way and employees liked working for Geraldine. Some employees had worked under Geraldine for most of their career. Like Geraldine several of the team members are retiring leaving few left in the company.
When it comes to leading the entire R&D Division, Geraldine is very controlled in defining goals, setting tasks, and is outstanding at dividing the work among the employees, organizing the product materials and coordinating and communicating activities between the different departments. However, those employees who work with Geraldine know that her approach depends on the task at hand. Several years ago when Geraldine overheard two or three workers talking about wanting a break from the monotony of doing the same job day in and day out, Geraldine set up a plan to rotate workers so they were exposed to different facets of the R&D process. Geraldine’s decision always appear to be dependent on the current circumstances and context of the decision. She is often heard instructing the newer workers, stating, “Always ask yourself which method will work best. Remember, you are always looking to find the simplest and most effective solution. Due to Geraldine’s savvy way of managing, the lab has shown an increase in morale, lower turnover and a significant decrease in R&D costs.
Geraldine could see the need for changes in the lab, the most important of which was retaining younger employees. Since she was retiring at the end of the year, Geraldine knew the new department head would have to deal with the problem. Her immediate concern was who the new department head should be. Her own granddaughter, Valerie Malone, was now working in the company and she knew Valerie was expecting the job.
Valerie was qualified for the job. She was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Maryland College Park with a double major in Botany and Food Science. She minored in Business Management. She had worked in the plant in Chicago every summer since High School and had reproduced and revised all her grandmother’s and great-great grandmother’s recipes. Starting full-time at 22 years of age Valerie got along with everyone in the department but at 27 Geraldine thought she may be too young to assume the position. Geraldine had hoped that she might mentor Valerie for a few more years and turn the reins over when she was 30, but health concerns made Geraldine shorten the plan.
Valerie was confident and competent in her work. She was passionate about keeping the business focused on its all-natural product line and developing ecofriendly packaging. She was detail oriented and the people on her team seemed to work well together. Geraldine noted that Valerie appeared to create functional teams well suited for the various types of tasks or projects. The teams invariably were always on time and productive. Although the group may change in terms of members depending on the task, the group was comprised of the longest standing members of R&D and also included Geraldine’s team from time to time.
Geraldine knew that Valerie feels strongly that the lab has to be updated to include the use of more sophisticated machinery and computers that would enhance the efficiency of the products being developed. Valerie also believes the update to technology will make the company more competitive. Valerie often tried to get Geraldine to agree to the revisions bringing in literature from various business journals to prove her point. “The business world is dynamic and requires people to adjust to the competition in a vigorous and active way. The lab needed the tools to make that happen.” Valerie argued. Valerie also told her grandmother that she had a lot of new ideas for oils and essences that only the new equipment would be able to test. Valerie was adamant that Biotech would lag behind the competitors especially in the new beauty line products if the company did not modernize.
Valerie liked to collaborate with the others but did not always take the lead. She often sat back and listened and at times deferred decisions to others whose opinion differed from her own. When Geraldine told Valerie, she would lose control of the group and maybe the project if she didn’t actively lead, Valerie only smiled and said “Nana you have to let the team unleash its potential, be creative or else they will leave and go somewhere that listens to them.” Valerie was insistent on the idea of bringing in the labs and R&D people from the other branches on projects rather than having them pass along the ideas. In a conversation one day about a new project for Germany, Valerie pointed out to Geraldine, “That new products have to be customer driven, and our customers are from all over the world. We need to appreciate their needs and taste preferences. While we can come up with our own ideas of what the market should like that also means that the markets are biased by our own pallets and health needs. We now have to think globally. The changing marketplace means we have to listen to our customer and what they want.”
Geraldine was unsure of some of Valerie’s ideas on engaging others. She felt sure that Valerie may begin to empower people rather than maintain control over the decision making. When, Geraldine questioned Valerie about her concerns, Valerie replied “Nana, this company is like one big family and in order for it to keep running functionally, we have to be aware of all its parts, all the people who are important to keep it vital, and change with the times to keep the livelihood of the family intact. To do this and keep people wanting to be a part of the family, we have to create an environment that makes employees feel stable and safe in the family yet dynamic enough to stay relevant in the industry. We have to keep employees looking and moving forward.” Geraldine shrugged and said nothing but thought, “They are more likely to get off task.” Geraldine knew the company had a collaborative culture, and she often worked together with her family in a similar fashion, but managing a department this way…she was not too sure. That business school education may have put some ideas into Valerie’s head that might come back and haunt her.
The other logical candidate was Melanie Harper. Department Head of the new products team, Melanie at 35 was competent, and ran her team like Geraldine would. In an effort to get some idea of Melanie’s management philosophy Geraldine asked her one day, after witnessing a not terribly successful exchange with one of her team, “What do you believe is important in managing a team?” Melanie’s reply was, “I think it is important to retain the final responsibility for decision making. Everyone should have their own specialty, while answering to the common good. My order and discipline are important. It was like what Joe just did. I asked him to process the essential oils for this new candy bar we are working on for Italy. He is the best at doing so and he does this well but he just kept going on with the project adjusting the ingredient list to make what amounts to a completely new candy bar. He claimed the adjustment was needed to get the best flavor from the oils. However, it threw everything off for everyone else in the project. His efforts wasted time. I tried to be fair and listened to his reasoning, but he is making the others feel like they are wasting their time. There is one direction, which I set, and he should follow.” Geraldine was disturbed by this a little. One thing that seemed inconsistent with the episode with Joe was the fact that Melanie usually wants employees to take initiative even if they make mistakes. “Are you sure he just wasn’t taking the initiative to get things right with the flavor?” Geraldine asked. “I supposed you have a point,” Melanie replied, “but he should know that we must have unity of direction and what Joe needs to understand is that he is not to take over and interfere with the work of the others in the team.” Geraldine agreed with some of Melanie’s approach but had to wonder if Melanie overdid the idea of order. Her staff seemed to have a greater turnover than Valerie’s, which wastes a great deal of time and money in the long run than the time Joe spent trying to make the candy bar work.
One other thing that bothered Geraldine about Melanie was the lack of new ideas and creativity. Although Melanie could take ideas from others and execute them in a creative way, she did not have a lot of new ideas of her own. She never seemed to seek new ideas or even revamp old ones. Geraldine saw Melanie as talented and would keep the lab in its current state making only minor changes. Melanie often said to Geraldine, “If it isn’t broken why fix it?” Geraldine liked the idea of the lab being run the same way, but she wondered if the lack of ideas was reflective of a good department head. After all the head was always expected to have new ideas.
Instructions
Step 1: Write the Introduction
Create the Introductory Paragraph
The introductory paragraph is the first paragraph of the paper but is typically written after writing the body of the paper (Questions students responded to above). View this website to learn how to write an introductory paragraph:
http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/donelan/intro.html
Step 2: Answer the Following
Identify from among Geraldine, Valerie or Melanie the woman who best represents the Classical Organizational School of Thought. (Hint: Look at the information provided for the different schools of thought and theorist and compare to the facts from the case scenario).
From among the following list of Classical School theorists listed below, select the one that best reflects the woman identified by you as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought and explain why. Note: You will need to research each theorist using all of the resources in week 1. Do not latch onto one fact but use all of the facts.
Henry Fayol
Lilian Gilbreth
Fredrick Taylor
Henry Towne
Max Weber
As stated in the facts, Geraldine acknowledged four key areas that are of concern to her in the selection of a successor: 1) updating the technology in the lab; 2) retaining young employees; 3)providing teams with strong leadership; and 4) encouraging new ideas. Which of the following four management theories would best fit Geraldine’s criteria as an ideal successor who would address the four concerns.
Fayol’s 14 Principles
The Contingency Approach
Modern Dynamic Engagement Theory
The Systems Approach
Human Relations Theory
Identify the theory that would best meet Geraldine’s desire for the successor of the department. Explain why.
Based on the management theory you selected, which woman (Valerie’s or Melanie) would Geraldine select to be her successor. Explain why.
All answers to the elements will use the facts within the case study along with class material to support any and all reasoning used to draw conclusions.
Step 3: Review the Paper
Read the paper to ensure all required elements are present. Use the grading rubric to ensure that you gain the most points possible for this assignment.
Proofread the paper for spelling and grammatical issues, and third person writing.
Read the paper aloud as a first measure;
Use the spell and grammar check in Word as a second measure;
Have someone who has excellent English skills to proof the paper;
Consider submitting the paper to the Effective Writing Center (EWC). The EWC will provide 4-6 areas that may need improvement.
Step 4: Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder (The assignment submitted to the Assignment Folder will be considered the student’s final product and therefore ready for grading by the instructor. It is incumbent upon the student to verify the assignment is the correct submission. No exceptions will be considered by the instructor).
How to Set Up the Paper
Create a Word or Rich Text Format (RTF) document that is single-spaced, with double spaces between paragraphs. Use 12-point font. The final product will be between 3 and 4 pages in length excluding the title page and reference page. Write clearly and concisely.
Use headings
Completing the Paper
In order to complete this project, you will want to first read the module, Learn How to Support What You Write, as this assignment requires you to use the course material and research to support what you write. Also,
Use the grading rubric while completing the project to ensure all requirements are met that will lead to the highest possible grade.
Third person writing is required. Third person means that there are no words such as “I, me, my, we, or us” (first person writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second person writing).
Contractions are not used in business writing, so do not use them.
You are expected to use the facts from the case scenario paired with the weekly courses material to develop the analysis and support the reasoning. No external resources can be used in completing the assignment. You are expected to use a wide array of course material.
Use direct quotation marks for primary sources. For all other source material used in the analysis, you will not use direct quotation marks but will instead paraphrase. What this means is that you will put the ideas of an author or article into your own words rather than lifting directly from a source document. You may not use more than four consecutive words from a source document (including case scenario facts), as doing so would require direct quotation marks. Changing words from a passage does not exclude the passage from having quotation marks.
Use in-text citations and provide a reference list that contains the reference associated with each in-text citation.
You may not use books in completing this project.
Provide the page or paragraph number in every in-text citation presented.
Due Date
Jun 24, 2018 5:59 PM
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: Project #1
Criteria Above Average Sufficient Developing Needs Improvement Failure
Introduction 1.25 points
Writes an introduction that captures the reader’s attention, gives context to the paper, and builds to the thesis that defines the main points to be discussed in the paper.
(1.125 – 1.25)
1.0625 points
Writes an introduction that provides context to the paper and presents the thesis statement that defines the main points to be discussed in the paper.
(1 – 1.124)
0.9375 points
Writes an introduction that provides a general context to the paper or the thesis is vague or underdeveloped.
(0.875 – 0.99)
0.8125 points
Attempts to write an introduction but has little to no context to the paper and the thesis is missing main points or no thesis statement provided.
(0.75 – 0.874)
0 points
No attempt at presenting an introduction.
(0)
Identify Woman who Best Fits Classical Organizational Theory School of Thought 3.5 points
Correctly identifies and comprehensively explains why the selected woman best fits the classical organizational theory using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(3.15 – 3.5)
2.975 points
Correctly identifies and explains why the selected woman best fits the classical organizational theory using the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions made but needs clarity or some development.
(2.8 – 3.14)
2.625 points
Attempts to identify the woman that best fits the classical organizational theory and attempts to use the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions but significant clarity or development is needed.
(2.45 – 2.79)
2.275 points
Incorrectly identifies the woman who best fits the classical organizational theory or does not use the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions.
(2.1 – 2.44)
0 points
Fails to identify and explain why the selected woman is the best fits to the classical school of thought.
(0)
Selects theory that best reflects woman identified as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought 3.5 points
Correctly selects the best theory that reflects the woman identified as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought and comprehensively explains why the selected theory reflects the woman using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(3.15 – 3.5)
2.975 points
Correctly selects the best theory that reflects the woman identified as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought and explains why the selected theory reflects the woman using the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions made but needs clarity or some development.
(2.8 – 3.14)
2.625 points
Attempts to select the best theory that reflects the woman identified as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought and attempts to explain why the selected theory reflects the woman by using the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions but significant clarity or development is needed.
(2.45 – 2.79)
2.275 points
Incorrectly select the best theory that reflects the woman identified as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought or does not explain why the selected theory reflects the woman or does not use the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions.
(2.1 – 2.44)
0 points
Fails to select the best theory that reflects the woman identified as the best fit to the Classical Organizational School of Thought and does not explain why the selected theory reflects the woman and does not use the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions.
(0)
Identify the theory that would best fit Geraldine’s criteria for a successor and explain why 3.5 points
Correctly Identifies the theory that would best fit Geraldine’s criteria for a successor and explains why, using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(3.15 – 3.5)
2.975 points
Correctly identifies the theory that would best fit Geraldine’s criteria for a successor and explains why, using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions. using the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions made but needs clarity or some development.
(2.8 – 3.14)
2.625 points
Attempts to correctly Identifies the theory that would best fit Geraldine’s criteria for a successor and explains why, using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions, but significant clarity or development is needed.
(2.45 – 2.79)
2.275 points
Incorrectly identifies the theory that would best fit Geraldine’s criteria for a successor or incorrectly explains why, minimal use of the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(2.1 – 2.44)
0 points
Fails to identify the theory that would best fit Geraldine’s criteria for a successor.
(0)
What woman should be selected to be her successor and why. 3.5 points
Correctly Identifies what woman should be selected to be her successor and why using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(3.15 – 3.5)
2.975 points
Correctly identifies what woman should be selected to be her successor and why using the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions made but needs clarity or some development.
(2.8 – 3.14)
2.625 points
Attempts to correctly what woman should be selected to be her successor and why, using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions, but significant clarity or development is needed.
(2.45 – 2.79)
2.275 points
Incorrectly identifies what woman should be selected to be her successor and why, minimal use of the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(2.1 – 2.44)
0 points
Fails to identify what woman should be selected to be her successor and why.
(0)
Explains how Biotech would potentially benefit if the three women formally studied organizational theory 3.5 points
Correctly explains how Biotech would potentially benefit if the three women formally studied organizational theory, using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(3.15 – 3.5)
2.975 points
Correctly explain how Biotech would potentially benefit if the three women formally studied organizational theory using the course material and research to support the reasoning and conclusions made but needs clarity or some development.
(2.8 – 3.14)
2.625 points
Attempts to explain how Biotech would potentially benefit if the three women formally studied organizational theory , using the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions, but significant clarity or development is needed.
(2.45 – 2.79)
2.275 points
Incorrectly explains how Biotech would potentially benefit if the three women formally studied organizational theory , minimal use of the course material and case scenario facts to support reasoning and conclusions.
(2.1 – 2.44)
0 points
Fails to
explain how Biotech would potentially benefit if the three women formally studied organizational theory
.
(0)
Attention to Instructions 2.5 points
The paper contains completion of all major assignment tasks. The paper also includes completion of all minor aspects of the assignment such as use of page/paragraph number, third person writing, required use of course readings, outside sources if needed, and assignment format.
(2.25 – 2.5)
2.125 points
The paper contains completion of all major assignment tasks. The paper missed one minor aspect of the assignment such as use of page/paragraph number, third person writing, required use of course readings, outside sources if needed, and assignment format.
(2.0 – 2.24)
1.875 points
The paper missed one major assignment task or two minor aspects of the assignment.
(1.75 – 1.99)
1.625 points
The paper missed two major assignment, one major assignment task & one minor tasks, or three or more minor aspects of the assignments.
(1.5 – 1.74)
0 points
The paper missed three or more major assignment tasks.
(0 – 1.49)
Writing Mechanics 2.5 points
Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English using paragraphs and sentence rather than bullets, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No contractions or jargon used. Zero to two errors noted.
(2.25 – 2.5)
2.125 points
Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Three to six errors noted.
(2.0 – 2.24)
1.875 points
Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Seven to 10 errors noted.
(1.75 – 1.99)
1.625 points
Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.
(1.5 – 1.74)
0 points
Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible, or errors are too plentiful to count.
(0 – 1.49)
APA Style (6th ed.) 1.25 points
1 – 2 APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout the paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.
(1.125 – 1.25)
1.0625 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference list but 3 – 4 APA style errors noted, or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1 – 2 times.
(1.0 – 1.124)
0.9375 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document with 5 – 6 errors noted; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 – 4 times in document.
(0.875 – 0.99)
0.8125 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 5 – 6 times; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 5 – 6 times in document or presents a total of 1 – 2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper when requires APA citations are needed throughout the document.
(0.75 – 0.874)
0 points
No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.
(0 – 0.74)
Overall Score Above Average
22.5 or more Sufficient
20 or more Developing
17.5 or more Needs Improvement
15 or more Failure
0 or more
Get The Answer