In selecting a school of thought and an organizational theory that best describes the current shipping manager, students will use the timeline to select a school of thought and a theory or theories of that time frame.  Students will to use the course material to respond to most of the assignment requirements but will also need to research the theorist(s) and theories to complete the assignment.  Students are expected to be thorough in responding. 

Assignment 1 Role of Manager and Impact of Organizational Theories on Managers (Week 3)

Purpose: 

In the first assignment, students are given a scenario in which the shipping manager who has worked for Galaxy Toys, Inc. since 1969.  The scenario serves to set the stage for students to demonstrate how management theories have changed over time.  For example, managing 30 years ago is different than managing in the 21st century.

Outcome Met by Completing This Assignment:

  • integrate management theories and principles into management practices

Instructions:

In Part One of this case study analysis, students are to use the facts from the case study to determine two different organization theories that are demonstrated.  For Part Two, students will compare the 21st century manager to that of the main character in the case study and the implications of change in being a 21st century manager.

In selecting a school of thought and an organizational theory that best describes the current shipping manager, students will use the timeline to select a school of thought and a theory or theories of that time frame.  Students will to use the course material to respond to most of the assignment requirements but will also need to research the theorist(s) and theories to complete the assignment.  Students are expected to be thorough in responding.

In Part Two, students are going to take what they have learned and compare the management skills of the 21st century shipping manager to the skills of the current shipping manager.

Step 1:  Review “How to Analyze a Case Study” under Week 3 Content.

Step 2:  Create a Word or Rich Text Format (RTF) document that is double-spaced, 12-point font.  The final product will be between 4-6 pages in length excluding the title page and reference page.

Step 3:  Review the grading rubric for the assignment.

Step 4:  In addition to providing an introduction, students will use headings following this format:

  • Title page with title, your name, the course, the instructor’s name;
  • Background;
  • Part One;
  • Part Two.

Step 5:  In writing a case study, the writing is in the third person.  What this means is 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).  If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this link:  http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-second-and-third-person.  Also note that students are not to provide personal commentary.

Step 6:  In writing this assignment, students are expected to support the reasoning using in-text citations and a reference list.  If any material is used from a source document, it must be cited and referenced.  A reference within a reference list cannot exist without an associated in-text citation and vice versa.  View the sample APA paper under Week 1 content.

Step 7:  In writing this assignment, students will use resources from the course material and no more than 2 external source documents.  NOTE:  The expectation is that students provide a robust use of the course material.

Step 8:  In completing the assignment, students are expected to use the facts from the case study and company profile paired with the weekly courses readings to develop the analysis.  View the company profile here:  Galaxy Toys, Inc. Company Profile.

Step 9: In writing this assignment, students are expected to paraphrase and not use direct quotes.  Students are expected to paraphrase, which can be learned by reviewing this link:   https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html

Step 10:  In writing this assignment, students may use external resources to address the school of thought and the theorist but the majority of resources (a minimum of 3 internat resources) will come from the course material.

Step 11:  Read critically and analyze the following scenario:

 

Part One

Scenario:

The shipping manager for Galaxy Toys Toledo, Ohio branch, Bart Aldrin, has been in his job since 1969.  Prior to coming to Galaxy, Bart worked as shipping clerk for International Shipping, a large container company.  Bart quickly rose to supervisor at International Shipping because of his ability to plan daily work, provide detailed instructions to workers that helped optimize the way tasks were performed and his knack of implementing processes so workers could be trained to perform their specialized sequence of motion in the most efficient way.  He brought this management style to Galaxy, which helped to improve the methodology of toy assembly as well as the shipping processes.

A major shift in management occurred in the late 1980’s and early 90’s that caused Bart (and other managers) to reconsider their management approach.  For example, heightened competition, advances in technology, the workers threat to unionize, their greater demand for employee management participation, work-life balance and a general shift in employee workplace values all affected the culture of Galaxy.  A greater focus on employees led to a new approach to management at Galaxy: people focus.  The owners of Galaxy embraced diversity and were willing to hear the ideas of employees and this was change in attitude and culture was evident in Bart, who embraced these changes wholeheartedly.  These internal changes enabled the company to adapt to uncertainty and to respond to its competitors more quickly.

Answer the required assignment elements making sure that the facts of the scenario and the course readings support the reasoning of the answers provided.

  • Identify and discuss the school of thought that best describes Bart’s management style when he first joined Galaxy. Remember to explain the facts that you have relied upon in your selection.
  • Discuss the theorist under the identified school of thought that best depicts Bart’s management style when he joined Galaxy. What contribution did this theorist make to management and why was his or her contribution important to the field of management?  Remember to explain the facts that you’ve relied upon in your selection.
  • Identify and discuss the school of thought that best describes the management style Bart used once the shift took place? Why is this school of thought the best choice?  Remember to demonstrate that the facts given in the scenario align with your choice.
  • Identify and discuss the theorist who best supports this school of thought.  Address the principles of the theory and how these principles affected the new approach to management as exhibited Bart and his fellow managers. How does what the theorist proposed, support the facts in the case study?
  • Compare and contrast the two schools of thought that were identified above.

 

Part Two

Scenario:

Recently, Bart announced his plans to retire.  His replacement is Joyce Barnhart.  Joyce is confident as a 21st century manager that she is capable of handling the new position as manager.

 

  • As a 21st century manager, how will Joyce’s understanding of the role of a manager be manifested/demonstrated in how she approaches her job? Remember that in responding to this question, students are expected to demonstrate their understanding of the 21st century management concepts discussed in this course.
  • How will the new approach to the job likely change the production and shipping department at Galaxy headquarters?

Step 12:  Create the introductory paragraph.  Within this paragraph, provide a brief overview of the scenario.  Then, provide a thesis statement and tell the reader the main topics covered in the paper.  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 13:  Respond to the questions in Part One and Part Two following the format provided.  Be clear and concise in the writing and make sure the questions are comprehensively answered.

Step 14:  Using the grading rubric as a comparison, read through the paper to ensure all required elements are presented.

Step 15: Proofread the paper for spelling and grammatical issues, and third person writing.

  • Use the spell and grammar check in Word as a first 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 16:  Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder.

Rubric Name: Assignment #1

Criteria

The best school of thought is identified; the management style is explained clearly, accurately and provides detailed explanations.

(1.08 – 1.20)

 

 

 

 

An acceptable school of thought is identified; the management style is explained clearly, accurately and provides detailed explanations.

(0.96 – 1.079)

 

 

 

Either the best school of thought or an acceptable school of thought is identified; the management style is explained but is inaccurately described or needs more accurate or thorough explanation.

(0.84 – 0.959)

 

 

 

 

 

School of thought is identified and discussed but does not fit the facts provided, inaccurate statements are made or key points missing.

(0.72 – 0.839)

Explanation of appropriate school of thought is not identified and there is no discussion as to why it is the best choice.

(0)

Theorist that best fits is identified and discussed.  Contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management are exceptionally described accurately and provides detailed explanations and makes accurate connections to the facts in the case study,

(1.08 – 1.20)

 

 

Theorist that best fits is identified.  Contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management is excellently described accurately and provides explanations and makes accurate connections to the facts in the case study,

(0.96 – 1.079)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theorist that best fits is identified.  Contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management are sufficiently described and attempts to make connections to the facts in the case study.

 

(0.84 – 0.959)

 

 

 

 

Theorist that best fits is incorrectly identified; either there is no discussion about the theorist or contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management  is not discussed; no connection to facts from case study or uses incorrectly uses facts from case study.

(0.72 – 0.839)

 

 

Neither theorist nor contributions to management were discussed.

(0)

School of thought that best describes management style once shift took place is identified; the management style is explained clearly, accurately and provides detailed explanations.

 

(1.08 – 1.20)

 

 

 

 

 

An acceptable school of thought is identified; the management style is explained clearly, accurately and provides detailed explanations.

(0.96 – 1.079)

 

 

Either the best school of thought or an acceptable school of thought is identified; the management style isbut is inaccurately described or needs more accurate or thorough explanation.

 

(0.84 – 0.959)

 

 

School of thought is identified and discussed but does not fit the facts provided, inaccurate statements are made or key points missing.

(0.72 – 0.839)

 

 

Explanation of appropriate school of thought is not identified and there is no discussion as to why it is the best choice.

(0)

Theorist is discussed and principles of theory and how manager would do job and interact with staff is discussed clearly, accurately and detailed explanations are provided. Theorist proposal accurately supported facts in case study.

(1.08 – 1.20)

 

 

Theorist that best fits is identified.  Contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management is excellently described and provides explanations and makes accurate connections to the facts in the case study.

(0.96 – 1.079)

 

Theorist that best fits is identified.  Contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management are sufficiently described and attempts to make connections to the facts in the case study.

 

(0.84 – 0.959)

Theorist that best fits is incorrectly identified; either there is no discussion about the theorist or contributions to management with explanation of why his/her contribution was important to field of management  is not discussed; no connection to facts from case study or uses incorrectly uses facts from case study.

(0.72 – 0.839)

Neither theorist nor contributions to management were discussed.

(0)

Demonstrates an exceptional ability to compare and contrast the two schools of thought providing specific examples to illustrate the comparison.  The paper includes only the information relevant to the comparison.

(1.08 – 1.20)

 

 

Demonstrates an excellent ability to compare and contrast the two schools of thought but the supporting information is general.  The paper includes only the information relevant to the comparison.

(0.96 – 1.079)

 

 

 

 

Demonstrates a satisfactory ability to compare and contrast the two schools of thoughtbut the supporting information is incomplete.  The paper may include information that is irrelevant to the comparison.

 

(0.84 – 0.959)

The paper compares or contrasts, but does not include both. There is no supporting information or support is incomplete.

(0.72 – 0.839)

No comparison/contrast of the two schools is discussed.

(0)

Demonstrates an exceptional ability to explain 21st century manager’s approach to job providing accurate and detailed explanations.

(0.9 – 1.0)

 

 

Demonstrates an excellent ability to explain 21st century manager’s approach to job providing accurate explanations.

(0.8 – 0.89)

 

 

Demonstrates an sufficient ability to explain 21st century manager’s approach to job providing accurate explanations.

(0.7 – 0.79)

Demonstrates an limited ability toexplain 21st century manager’sapproach to job providing limited explanations with no examples.

(0.6 – 0.69)

No explanation of 21st century manager’s approach to the job discussed.

(0)

Demonstrates an exceptional ability to explain accurately and with detailed examples how the new approach to the job will change the production and shipping department.

(0.9 – 1.0)

 

 

Demonstrates an excellent ability to explain accurately  how the new approach to the job will change the production and shipping department  providing specific examples to illustrate.

(0.8 – 0.89)

 

 

Demonstrates satisfactory ability to explain how the new approach to the job will change the production and shipping department.  Provides an example.

(0.7 – 0.79)

 

 

Demonstrates limited ability to explain how the new approach to the job will change the production and shipping department.  Fails to provide examples.

(0.6 – 0.69)

How the new approach to the job will change the production and shipping department not discussed.

(0)

Comments reflected a highly accomplished level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurate, thorough, and soundly reasoned conclusions.

(3.6 – 4)

 

 

Comments reflect an excellent level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurately reasoned conclusions.

(3.2 – 3.59 )

Comments reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning.

(2.8 – 3.19)

Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions.

(2.4 – 2.79)

Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.

(0 – 2.39)

Presents exceptionally well-supported arguments or positions with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.

(2.7 – 3)

Presents excellent arguments or positions that are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.

(2.4 – 2.69)

 

 

Satisfactory arguments or positions are presented but there is a mix of opinion or unclear view with supported arguments using course readings.  Case study facts are occasionally used but arguments would be much stronger with use of facts.

(2.1 – 2.39)

 

 

Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings.

(1.8 – 2.09)

Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas.  Does not provide facts presented in case study.

(0 – 1.79)

Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements responding completely to each aspect of assignment including minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format.

(1.8 – 2.0)

Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.

(1.6 – 1.79)

Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.

(1.4 – 1.59)

Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.

(1.2 – 1.39)

Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.

(0 – 1.19)

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors,  spelling and grammatical errors.  No errors found.  No contractions or jargon used.

(1.8 – 2.0)

Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics:  conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  One to three errors found.

(1.6 – 1.79)

Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  Four to 10 errors found.

(1.4 – 1.59)

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  More than 10 errors found.

(1.2 – 1.39)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of written English largely incomprehensible, or errors are too plentiful to count.

(0 – 1.19)

No APA style errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper.  Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

(0.9 – 1.0)

Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.

(0.8 – 0.89)

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 times in document.

(0.7 – 0.79)

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 4-5 times; or presents only 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper that requires APA citations throughout the document.

(0.6 – 0.69)

No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0 – 0.59)
Overall Score