This document summarizes an organizational analysis paper assignment given in a human relations course. The professor had student groups conduct mini-diagnostic studies of organizations to learn theories in practice. Groups of up to 5 students chose an organization to study. They researched it, contacted it to get permission to study, developed surveys/questions, interviewed employees, analyzed data, and wrote a report. The professor provided guidance and deadlines to encourage quality work within a tight timeframe. Student feedback indicated the collaborative project and professor's management style fostered respect, trust, and cohesion among groups.

1. 29
HUMAN RELATIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS:
COLLABORATIVE WRITING BY BEGINNERS
Taggart Smith
Purdue University
In an effortto make a collaborative writingassignment
more &dquo;real world&dquo; and practical, I tried an organizational
analysis paper as a major writing assignment in my
semester-long classes. The results were good: my stu-
dents felt they learned something useful, and the papers
written were presentable as feedback to the organizations
studied. Facilitating the writing of the papers and
orchestrating each group’s dynamics was a challenge.
A brief sketch of my human relations course and its
student constituency is in order. Human relations in
organizations involves such broad topics as communica-
tion, motivation, leadership, conflict management, work
groups, organizational culture, and climate. The
emphasis of the course is to study the theories underlying
these areas as they affect human beings at work-in
industrial or service settings, as well as sales, public
relations, or corporate management. Within the context
of a major university whose graduates find employment
in technology, engineering, or agriculture, my human
relations course draws students from these majors, as
well as some students from liberal arts, communications,
marketing, pharmacy, and military science. The grade
levels range from semester one freshmen to semester
eight seniors; class size is 45 students. The upshot of all
this is that an incredible amount of student diversity is
gathered in my classroom. Collaborating on a group
paper is a challenge for all.
INITIAL GROUP FORMATION
The formation of working groups in the course is
especially important, because students who are total
strangers to each other resent being placed in groups
randomly. I find that if they have a choice of groups,
students like their groups better and feel more in control.
This alleviates some stress and prevents later attribution
of failure to &dquo;the professor assigned me to this group.&dquo; I
have a mini-assessment center exercise in which stu-
dents who wish to be considered as group leaders are
&dquo;fish-bowled&dquo; and discuss a human relations case while
the class observes. Students then choose the classmate
whose comments about the case most closely coincide
with their own ideas. Thus each group has at least some
ideological base from the beginning.
Group size is limited to no more than five people.
Groups larger than this have trouble meshing busy
schedules when meeting outside the classroom. In
general, smaller groups encourage more participation
and personal discussions; they usually report greater
satisfaction at semester’s end, as well. Larger groups
have more resources (each student is considered a
resource), but subgroups sometimes form, students
report being inhibited, and absenteeism from group
meetings occurs. Group cohesiveness, or how well group
members like and feel close to each other, is more easily
established with a small group, and since this feeling or
attribute frequently governs the success of the group, it
is important in a human relations class.
One of my class objectives is to relate textbook prin-
ciples to the &dquo;real world&dquo; of the student, since many
undergraduates have not had substantive work
experience. However, students have had experience
being in groups since birth, via a family, a school club, or
a fraternity/sorority. The collaborative writing project
psychophysically illustrates the principles behind the
organization and group dynamics about which they are
reading and writing. All this is brought to closure at the
end of the semester in a personal reaction paper in which
each student assesses personal and group growth, along
with perceived needs for change and &dquo;doing it better next
time.&dquo;
&dquo;
PROJECT OUTLINE
The group project requires students to complete a
mini-diagnostic study of an organization; the purpose is
to see the theories of human relations &dquo;in action.&dquo; In
addition to experiencing principles of effective human
relations by working togetheras a team, the project builds
diagnostic and communication skills for students. Groups
select their own organizations to study and then focus on
the topical area oftheir choice. Examples are:
~
Employee Attitude & Organizational Climate at
the Purdue University Police Department
~
Leadership Style at JC Penney & Company
~
Impact of Computers on Purdue’s Food Service
~
Employee Attitudes at Whirlpool Research Cen-
ter, Lafayette
~
Performance Appraisals at McDonald’s
~ Macaw’s Restaurant: A Study of Motivational
Techniques
~
Human Relations To Go: A Study of Fast Food
Employees
~ Communication Structure of Purdue Memorial
Union Club

2. 30
~
Organizational Culture at A E. Staley South
Plant
~
Equal Employment Opportunity and AfBrmative
Action at Eli Lilly & Company, Tippecanoe
Laboratories
.
Job Satisfaction at Follett’s Bookstore
.
Motivational Research on Nurses at St.
Elizabeth’s Hospital
Groups are instructed to research their topics via secon-
dary sources prior to contacting an organization. They
write a letter to a key contact person introducing the
project and expressinginterest in studying the firm. They
then call to initiate a meeting and to ask permission to do
their study. While they wait for meetings and permission,
groups are encouraged to develop a questionnaire, struc-
ture interview questions, and research the organization’s
history as preparation. After a group’s initial site visit,
they return to ask employees or managers the questions
the group has selected. As facilitator of these projects, I
establish due dates for all paperwork and counsel/critique
each group’s written work prior to their administration
of surveys, questionnaires, or interviews at the site.
Once groups secure their primary data, I encourage
their assessment and analysis to draw conclusions and
recommendations based on the textbook theories stu-
dents are learning. The emphasis is to look at theories
and relate them to activities and opinions students have
actually seen and gathered on the site.
The report format used is:
.
Title page
.
Tabe of contents and/or list oftables
.
Purpose ofthe study
.
Methodology used
.
Background/history of the firm
.
Analysis and discussion ofthe data
.
Conclusions and recommendations
.
Works cited
.
Appendices of tables, contact letters, question-
naire results, company publications, pictures,
whatever.
I also made a mini-APA style book as a guide for students
unfamiliar with this information. I require an executive
summary of the project to be handed out to classmates
during a presentation of the study to the class.
Timeframes for the accomplishment ofthese projects
are purposely tightened. In other words, I set deadlines
for submission ofsecondary research results very shortly
after each group is formed. I then set deadlines for each
aspect of the report based on a fairly rapid schedule to
encourage attention to task completion. I have noted in
previous classes that students have more time and ener-
gy in thefirsthalfofa semester, so I encourage completion
of major work then. I have also noted that students
generally don’t reach a fever pitch on a project until very
shortly before it is due. ( Ahh, human nature!)
Knowing this, I set completion dates for all projects in
week nine of the semester and allow groups to negotiate
additional time if they need it to produce a quality
product. My purpose is to let students experience being
given consideration, as opposed to emphasizing task
completion of a less-than-good product. Doing this
epitomizes the Theory Y, participative management
ideas they are reading about in their textbooks. As a
follow-up to extending deadlines for project completion, I
give all classes a handout detailing the Blake and Mouton
Managerial Grid and ask them to indicate what they
perceive as my managerial style.
Based on my classes, one-third of the students indi-
cated &dquo;Organization Man Management,&dquo; or balancing
the workload while maintaining morale at a satisfactory
level. One-third indicated &dquo;Country Club Management,&dquo;
or establishing a friendly, comfortable atmosphere and
work tempo by thoughtful attention to the needs of
people. One-third indicated ‘Team Management,&dquo; or
accomplishing work through committed people in an
organization where trust and respect are established.
Since the other alternatives in this grid are
&dquo;Impoverished Management&dquo; and &dquo;Authority/ Obedi-
ence,&dquo; I am pleased to obtain the more pleasant alterna-
tives in terms of student feeling about my course
management. An important note at this point: the stu-
dents feel comfortable and an atmosphere of trust and
respect for each other as people is established by mid-
semester. Moreover, thisfeelingextended to me as course
manager, which is what I had hoped to accomplish with
the management style I am using. Mutual respect all
around makes achieving objectives far easier.
This outcome typifies what students are reading in
their textbook as well. Cohesive groups attain a higher
level ofsuccess in achieving their objectives and are more
satisfied in the process than non-cohesive groups. Fur-
ther, cohesive groups with high levels of productivity
more readily accept management’s expectations of
productivity, which is the climate I try to foster in the
classroom. Tolerance of non-conformity with group
norms tends to produce low cohesive groups with inter-
mediate levels ofproductivity. My insistence on a quality
product shows students my own tolerance for non-con-
formity, but at the same time they are aware of my
concern for them as people in my &dquo;organization.&dquo;
Factors which increase group cohesiveness are
generally summarized by the students in writing their
personal reaction papers at the end of the course. If
students like the other people in their group, they are
more cohesive and stick together as a team, frequently
establishing friendships which last beyond their
semester in my classroom. If group membership is

3. 31
desirable for students, they will frequently excel in their
efforts to contribute to the group; thus, non-producers or
marginal performers sometimes &dquo;break out&dquo; of their
academic lethargy under a cohesive group’s influence.
Equal levels of participation among group members
encourages cohesiveness as well; dominant or aggressive
group members discourage this.
Groups which discover similarities among members
frequently are more cohesive. Thus, I encourage groups
to spend time together on non-task activities so that
students find things to like about each other, which
usually happens. One group this semester produced a
good paper, butfelt they were too task oriented and didn’t
have as much fun as the other groups seemed to be
having. Near the end of the semester, they spent a day
together by sharing lunch, going bowling, and &dquo;setting
around&dquo; (Hoosier expression) talking for several hours.
End result: they liked each other as persons to such an
extent, they regretted not having spent time together
previously.
As students become aware of one another’s likesJdis-
likes, strong/weak points, capabilities/incapacities, they
become more of a team, using their resources (them-
selves) more advantageously in producing a quality
product. For example, one successful group chose to study
a drugstore chain, the nearest location ofwhich was a city
100 miles distant from campus. One group member had
his pilot’slicense, so he flew the group to the store location.
Moreover, they rented a video camera, photographed
their activities, and had an absorbing presentation in
addition to their paper.
Commitment and agreement on group objectives
causes cohesiveness to develop. Intergroup competition
spurs group performance as well. rve noted that success-
ful groups care more about achieving their objectives as
a group than in meting out individual credit, which in a
normally competitive environment is rare. Finally, suc-
cess in achieving group objectives encourages cohesive-
ness. In the final analysis, I think the students in their
work groups and I, as well, experienced success in achiev-
ing course objectives.