1 Individual Organisational Problem Analysis (40%) 1. Guidelines Context Locally, nationally and internationally, there are many organisations whose success or failure has been determined at least in part by key organisational behaviour and people factors. Success may not necessarily mean financial performance – it may mean that the organisation has effectively managed a “turnaround” of some sort (for example, a major change to ‘go green’ following an environmental incident or to improve diversity following being labelled a biased or discriminatory employer. Failure may not mean financial disaster – it may mean a loss of trust with stakeholders, the presence of unethical behaviour or a damaging culture, or the loss of key talent (employees) to competitors. There have been many examples in the media over the last five years. For example, culture, leadership, and motivation and reward systems were antecedents to Enron’s failure, which had severe consequences for its stakeholders. Tasks 1. Choose a real case of an organisation that successfully (or otherwise less than successfully) dealt with a particular problem or failure (must have occurred in the last 10 years) that has damaged the organisation in some way 2. Describe briefly what happened, the context, and the consequences for the organisation's stakeholders 3. Pick one relevant analytical framework (e.g., SWOT, PESTEL or stakeholder analysis) and provide a brief analysis of what happened 4. Building on the previous analysis, identify, analyse and discuss in more detail 2 to 3 organisational behaviour (OB) factors that contributed to the problem/failure. These may be individual, group or organisational level factors 5. After having conducted the problem analysis, (a) describe what the organisation did to achieve success or post-failure to address the problem and/or prevent a reoccurrence of the problem, and (b) evaluate the effectiveness of the organisation’s response to the failure 2 6. After having evaluated the organisation’s response to the failure encountered, make recommendations for what could have been done better and/or moving forward in response to the OB issues identified in the beginning. In making these recommendations, it is important to be pragmatic and specific (i.e. make recommendations that are viable and within the organisation’s capacity to implement). 7. Referencing: a) Include a minimum of 10 journal articles b) Referencing has to adhere the Academy of Management referencing style (note: the guideline is available on BlackBoard in the Assessment Section) 8. Writing a Report: a) The report has to be 2500 words (+/- 10%). Assignments below/exceeding the word limit in excess of 10% will be penalised. b) Appendices and references are not included in the word count. However, you cannot assume that appendicised materials will be read in detail c) Please include a word count on th ...

1. 1
Individual Organisational Problem Analysis (40%)
1. Guidelines
Context
Locally, nationally and internationally, there are many
organisations whose success or failure
has been determined at least in part by key organisational
behaviour and people factors. Success
may not necessarily mean financial performance – it may mean
that the organisation has
effectively managed a “turnaround” of some sort (for example, a
major change to ‘go green’
following an environmental incident or to improve diversity
following being labelled a biased
or discriminatory employer. Failure may not mean financial
disaster – it may mean a loss of
trust with stakeholders, the presence of unethical behaviour or a
damaging culture, or the loss

2. of key talent (employees) to competitors. There have been many
examples in the media over
the last five years. For example, culture, leadership, and
motivation and reward systems were
antecedents to Enron’s failure, which had severe consequences
for its stakeholders.
Tasks
1. Choose a real case of an organisation that successfully (or
otherwise less than
successfully) dealt with a particular problem or failure (must
have occurred in the last 10
years) that has damaged the organisation in some way
2. Describe briefly what happened, the context, and the
consequences for the organisation's
stakeholders
3. Pick one relevant analytical framework (e.g., SWOT,
PESTEL or stakeholder analysis)
and provide a brief analysis of what happened
4. Building on the previous analysis, identify, analyse and
discuss in more detail 2 to 3
organisational behaviour (OB) factors that contributed to the
problem/failure. These may

3. be individual, group or organisational level factors
5. After having conducted the problem analysis, (a) describe
what the organisation did to
achieve success or post-failure to address the problem and/or
prevent a reoccurrence of the
problem, and (b) evaluate the effectiveness of the organisation’s
response to the failure
2
6. After having evaluated the organisation’s response to the
failure encountered, make
recommendations for what could have been done better and/or
moving forward in
response to the OB issues identified in the beginning. In making
these recommendations,
it is important to be pragmatic and specific (i.e. make
recommendations that are viable and
within the organisation’s capacity to implement).
7. Referencing:
a) Include a minimum of 10 journal articles
b) Referencing has to adhere the Academy of Management
referencing style

4. (note: the guideline is available on BlackBoard in the
Assessment Section)
8. Writing a Report:
a) The report has to be 2500 words (+/- 10%). Assignments
below/exceeding the
word limit in excess of 10% will be penalised.
b) Appendices and references are not included in the word
count. However, you
cannot assume that appendicised materials will be read in detail
c) Please include a word count on the front page of your
assignment
Choosing a Case:
1. The organisational failure/problem must have occurred in the
last 10 years.
2. It is recommended that you choose a case where the failure
was of considerable
magnitude. That is, the failure caused some kind of harm to one
or more of the
organisation’s stakeholders (e.g. employees, customers,
shareholders, suppliers, the
community, the organisation’s board, etc.).

5. 3. You may NOT analyse any case that has been discussed in
class nor may you derive your
analysis from an existing case study.
4. Beyond these requirements, the choice of case is at your
discretion. You are expected to
select a case that you are familiar with (e.g., from personal
experience or through network).
o Note: All 'personal' case information will be treated as private
and confidential. If
you undertake primary research within an organisation or use
material that is not
publicly available you need to contact your lecturer or course-
coordinator for
instructions on how to adhere to the UQ Business School’s
ethical guidelines for
data collection.
3
When Conducting an Analysis, Making an Evaluation, and
Providing Recommendations:

6. 1. Apply relevant models, concepts, theories and literature in
the field of organisational
behaviour.
2. You are expected to incorporate relevant research and theory
from the broader
organisational behaviour literature (e.g., journal articles and/or
books), not just the text and
course materials
3. Conduct desk research to obtain information and/or data and
examples to illustrate and
support your analysis, evaluation and recommendations (e.g.,
media reports, interviews,
independent investigation reports, organisational reports, etc.)
Submission
The Individual Case Study Report should be submitted via
Turnitin in Blackboard. No
hardcopy submission required.
Optional Progress Report
The objective of the progress report is to ensure you are on
track and have identified a suitable
for the assessment. The progress report is optional and NOT

7. assessed. It should not be
longer than one page and should include a brief description of
the following:
ompany/media-style sources and three
relevant academic (i.e.
journal articles) references that demonstrate you will be able to
locate sufficient
information for an informed problem analysis.
Note: Email the report to Professor Neal Ashkanasy or Dr.
Hataya Sibunruang by no later than
Friday, 30 March.
4
2. Assessment Criteria
Case Description and Data (5 marks)
failure and its consequences

8. on, material and data on
the case
Analysis and Evaluation (15 marks)
-related
factors contributing to the
failure
ourse concepts, models,
and theories
Evaluation of Organisational Response and Recommendations
(15 marks)
organisation’s response
specificity
recommendations

9. Presentation (5 marks)
rofessional appearance of report and appendices
Management Journal, i.e.
AMJ referencing style)
5
3. Grading Criteria for Individual Project Report
Grades 2 or 3 (Fails) – Assignments graded 2 or 3 tend to give a
naïve perspective of the topic,
and are descriptive rather than analytical. There is little or no
evidence of critical analysis or
integration of the case information and readings, and analysis
and recommendations are not
substantiated by facts, examples, and/or the relevant literature.
These assignments are also

10. often difficult to read and to understand. Often they include
poor use of the literature,
inadequate references or incorrect recommendations. The author
has not understood the case
and/or topic. The paper is either too brief or too long, poorly
presented, with possible errors of
punctuation and spelling.
Grade 4 (Pass) – To obtain a grade of 4, the author needs to
demonstrate a basic understanding
of the case and topic. Assignments allocated this grade often
rely heavily on describing the
case and literature with minimal transformation or analysis of
the material. The assignment
topic is addressed, and a rudimentary understanding of the key
issues in the case is
demonstrated, with some attempt to integrate literature and
management practice to make
recommendations. Overall, the assignment is acceptable, but
vague and unconvincing in parts.
This grade indicates that the author has gained a basic
understanding of the case, the relevant
factors that lead to the failure, and some of the relevant theories
and concepts, but has not

11. understood these to any great depth. The assignment is
adequately presented.
Grade 5 (Credit) – To obtain a grade of 5, the author must show
a solid understanding and
description of the case, and an ability to apply relevant
literature and concepts to demonstrate
a level of integration of the material. Assignments in this
category support the case analysis
and recommendations with facts, examples, data and relevant
literature, and demonstrate a
good understanding of the key issues and relevant theory. This
grade indicates that the author
has demonstrated an understanding of the depth and breadth of
the case and relevant concepts.
The assignment is clearly written and presented.
Grade 6 (Distinction) – To obtain a grade of 6, an assignment
must integrate the case material
and relevant literature to make an appropriate whole. It must
address all aspects of the
assignment criteria, present a rigorous and convincing case
analysis and set of
recommendations that is logical and well supported by facts,

12. examples and relevant literature.
6
Assignments at this level show selectivity and judgement
regarding what is important and what
is less important. The assignment must be well written and
presented, and logically structured.
The author demonstrates an understanding of the depth and
breadth of the case and relevant
theory; and the assignment is well above average standard. The
assignment is clear, concise
and well presented.
Grade 7 (High Distinction) – An assignment that obtains a grade
of 7 will be of a very high
standard. The report presents and tackles the complexity of the
case and issue. The assignment
is characterised by a high level of critical analysis and insight
on the case, which enables the
author to identify appropriate, feasible and effective
recommendations, and to integrate with
mastery case material with relevant theory and concepts in a
highly reflective manner. The

13. assignment shows clarity, cohesion, and is written in an
engaging manner that is free of errors
and well presented.