organizational behaviour
1 MGT5OBR ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR Assessment 2: Individual Assignment This individual assignment provides you with an opportunity to develop your critical thinking skills and skills in reading and understanding academic journal articles. This assignment is an Article Analysis. Your task is to compare and contrast three academic journal articles. You need to: (a) Summarise each article (b) Analyse the articles (c) Provide recommendations As a general guide these three main parts should be roughly equal in word count. The introduction and conclusion should each be approximately 10% of the length of the paper. Instructions 1. Select one of the articles provided by the workshop facilitator, and then use the library databases and search engines to find two additional journal articles published on the same topic. In approximately week 3, your workshop facilitator or the subject coordinator will provide a short list of recent academic journal articles. Select one of the articles for inclusion in your report. The two additional journal articles must have been published between 2010 and present and must be selected from the following list of journals: *Journal of Organizational Behavior *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes *Journal of Applied Psychology Academy of Management Journal British Journal of Management Human Relations Journal of Management Leadership Quarterly *It is recommended that you start your search within one of the journals marked with an *. These journals principally publish topics in organisational behaviour. **Note: These are the exact names of the acceptable journals. Click on the journal name to go to the online library access page (La Trobe sign in may be required). 2. Read each article thoroughly. Pay particular attention to the introduction, literature review, and discussion sections. You can skim the methods and results sections. You will use this information to analyse and compare and contrast the articles. 3. Write your essay The individual assignment should be written in a neat, professional and engaging manner using an essay format. Your essay should have the following sections: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 http://www.sciencedirect.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/science/journal/07495978?sdc=1 http://www.sciencedirect.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/science/journal/07495978?sdc=1 http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/sp-3.25.0a/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=434f4e1a73d37e8ceb49fbbfe17c3e8f0887af26ec1e236f2ca70b4426cb6bebc635f2968b168c15539d0615db36080a771afd6da9259c9b3ca17860396db0cd27797f31109738222ad83d544b24948b491040f7ff0b3d566e03ff562abfa1e8c8b3f48a94eefda1780660d946ba0014a76cdc4bc97a72f2aee200f6ee8621feeacf2d869877f29960ed794516b1b0a6db3a6f8b12046d94be7f4df180e0039a4d9b9890b7bcee9e2a556ff10cfb46b2a414686d41626e7c085193493c578c55de11d4d47400be1e83c6881b2173b831a1f6cc69b0d568b4e4d9624b5f77b1d2 http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/ehost/command/detail?vid=0&sid=6543dd2a-1e07-4a0d-a5f9-c57f1b3b6db3%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#jid=AMJ&db=bth http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1744-6570 http://journals.sagepub.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/loi/hum http://journals.sagepub.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/loi/jom http://www.sciencedirect.com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/science/journal/10489843?sdc=1 2 • Introduction o Try to write something engaging to capture the reader’s interest. o Clearly identify the topic that ties the three articles together (e.g., motivation, organisational citizenship, etc.). o Include a brief overview of the assignment and how it is organised. • Article summary o Briefly summarise the articles. Focus on describing the key concepts and main points from each article (e.g., the theoretical concepts). • Article analysis o Identify and discuss on which points they agree and on which points they differ. Can the differing opinions be synthesised? If you deem an author’s position more credible explain your arguments. If you disagree with an author’s position, explain your reasoning. Do the research findings matter, and can the research be applied in real work settings? • Recommendations o Based on the above analysis, what specific recommendations can you make for managers or organisations? Aim for 2 to 4 clear and concise recommendations. ▪ Don’t simply re-state the authors’ recommendations from each article; develop your own recommendations based on all three articles. ▪ If it isn’t possible to make any recommendations (e.g., all the articles were severely flawed), explain your reasoning. • Conclusion o Summarise and integrate your findings. Identify any limitations within your essay. Final comments. • References o Provide references as a separate page at the end of the document. You need to use the APA or Harvard Referencing System. Length: The total length of the assignment is a maximum of 2,000 words (+/- 10%) (Reference list and title page are excluded from the word count) Weighting: 40% of your total mark. Due date: Sunday ending Week 8 by 11:55pm Submission: Submit via the LMS (Assignment Turnitin). Hard copies are NOT required Format: The document should be written as clear, concise essay. It is important that your essay has a logical flow and good structure, makes use of relevant subheadings where appropriate, and that you write using coherent, integrated text, avoiding grammatical and spelling mistakes. For reading (and marking) ease please use a 12-point Calibri font with 1.5x spacing. Marking Criteria: Please refer to the LMS for marking criteria. 3 Tips • Focus your discussion and analysis on the key concepts and theories in the articles. • Focus your discussion and analysis on the information contained in the three articles, and only the three articles. • You can skim the methods and results sections for each article, especially for highly complex statistical analysis. Teaching staff understand that these sections are often complex and difficult to understand, and they will not expect detailed analysis of these sections. The paragraphs just before the Methods section will usually give a brief overview of how the study or studies were conducted, and the first few paragraphs of the Discussion section will usually give you a brief summary of the results. • Use in-text citations throughout your report and include a separate reference page at the end of the document. • In the main body of the report, use in-text citations to identify the articles and the source of your ideas. In APA and Harvard style, this means you should provide the author surnames and the year of publication when discussing something from that article. For example, ‘Smith and Jackson (1997) argued that Concept X …’ or ‘Concept X can be defined as … (Smith and Jackson, 1997)’. • Ask for help if you are unsure about what to do. • Refer to Assessment Help Guide (located on the LMS). • Only use the three articles as references. MGT5OBR: Assessment 2 Marking Guide Individual Assignment CRITERIA* A: Excellent (> 80 %) B: Very good (70 – 79%) C: Good (60 – 69%) D: Acceptable (50 – 59%) N: Unacceptable (<50%) article summary (25% of assessment mark) article summary has excellent focus on relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings, relevance). demonstrates deep and broad understanding of the theory and research in all three articles. article summary has very good focus on relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings, relevance). very few and very minor errors in understanding of the theory and research in all three articles. article summary is good and mostly focussed on relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings). may have some areas that are somewhat superficial or based on minor errors in understanding --or-- discussion of two articles is very good but discussion of third article could be improved. article summary is acceptable but could be more focussed relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings). may have some areas that are moderately superficial or based on some minor errors in understanding, reasoning, or logic. --or--discussion of one article is very good but discussion of other two articles could be improved. articles not described, or description is unclear, or discussion is focussed on mostly irrelevant points with limited analysis. or description is based on disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes with no actual context or discussion. very limited or highly superficial analysis, or significant misunderstanding. article analysis (25% of assessment mark) excellent analysis. thoughtful, well-argued comparison of all three articles. clear position with extra careful reasoning and logic. very good analysis. comparative points explained in clear, concise, and accurate manner. clear position with very minor errors in reasoning or logic. good analysis. comparative points are mostly clear and focused. or two comparisons are clear and focused but third/ overall comparison could be improved. solid analysis but could be more focused or clear. or one comparison is clear and focused but other two/overall comparisons could be improved. analytical skills not demonstrated. or analysis describes disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes with no actual insight or analysis. recommendations (25% of assessment mark) excellent recommendations that are based on clear and logical application of the overall article analyses and comparisons. very good recommendations that are based on clear and logical application of the overall article analyses and comparisons. very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. good recommendations but could be more strongly related to the overall article analyses and comparisons. may include some minor errors in reasoning. solid attempt to formulate recommendations but may article="" summary="" (25%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" article="" summary="" has="" excellent="" focus="" on="" relevant="" and="" key="" points="" (e.g.,="" main="" theoretical="" perspectives,="" key="" concepts,="" findings,="" relevance).="" demonstrates="" deep="" and="" broad="" understanding="" of="" the="" theory="" and="" research="" in="" all="" three="" articles.="" article="" summary="" has="" very="" good="" focus="" on="" relevant="" and="" key="" points="" (e.g.,="" main="" theoretical="" perspectives,="" key="" concepts,="" findings,="" relevance).="" very="" few="" and="" very="" minor="" errors="" in="" understanding="" of="" the="" theory="" and="" research="" in="" all="" three="" articles.="" article="" summary="" is="" good="" and="" mostly="" focussed="" on="" relevant="" and="" key="" points="" (e.g.,="" main="" theoretical="" perspectives,="" key="" concepts,="" findings).="" may="" have="" some="" areas="" that="" are="" somewhat="" superficial="" or="" based="" on="" minor="" errors="" in="" understanding="" --or--="" discussion="" of="" two="" articles="" is="" very="" good="" but="" discussion="" of="" third="" article="" could="" be="" improved.="" article="" summary="" is="" acceptable="" but="" could="" be="" more="" focussed="" relevant="" and="" key="" points="" (e.g.,="" main="" theoretical="" perspectives,="" key="" concepts,="" findings).="" may="" have="" some="" areas="" that="" are="" moderately="" superficial="" or="" based="" on="" some="" minor="" errors="" in="" understanding,="" reasoning,="" or="" logic.="" --or--discussion="" of="" one="" article="" is="" very="" good="" but="" discussion="" of="" other="" two="" articles="" could="" be="" improved.="" articles="" not="" described,="" or="" description="" is="" unclear,="" or="" discussion="" is="" focussed="" on="" mostly="" irrelevant="" points="" with="" limited="" analysis.="" or="" description="" is="" based="" on="" disconnected="" bits="" of="" information="" or="" many="" direct="" quotes="" with="" no="" actual="" context="" or="" discussion.="" very="" limited="" or="" highly="" superficial="" analysis,="" or="" significant="" misunderstanding.="" article="" analysis="" (25%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" excellent="" analysis.="" thoughtful,="" well-argued="" comparison="" of="" all="" three="" articles.="" clear="" position="" with="" extra="" careful="" reasoning="" and="" logic.="" very="" good="" analysis.="" comparative="" points="" explained="" in="" clear,="" concise,="" and="" accurate="" manner.="" clear="" position="" with="" very="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning="" or="" logic.="" good="" analysis.="" comparative="" points="" are="" mostly="" clear="" and="" focused.="" or="" two="" comparisons="" are="" clear="" and="" focused="" but="" third/="" overall="" comparison="" could="" be="" improved.="" solid="" analysis="" but="" could="" be="" more="" focused="" or="" clear.="" or="" one="" comparison="" is="" clear="" and="" focused="" but="" other="" two/overall="" comparisons="" could="" be="" improved.="" analytical="" skills="" not="" demonstrated.="" or="" analysis="" describes="" disconnected="" bits="" of="" information="" or="" many="" direct="" quotes="" with="" no="" actual="" insight="" or="" analysis.="" recommendations="" (25%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" excellent="" recommendations="" that="" are="" based="" on="" clear="" and="" logical="" application="" of="" the="" overall="" article="" analyses="" and="" comparisons.="" very="" good="" recommendations="" that="" are="" based="" on="" clear="" and="" logical="" application="" of="" the="" overall="" article="" analyses="" and="" comparisons.="" very="" few="" and="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning,="" accuracy="" or="" relevance.="" good="" recommendations="" but="" could="" be="" more="" strongly="" related="" to="" the="" overall="" article="" analyses="" and="" comparisons.="" may="" include="" some="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning.="" solid="" attempt="" to="" formulate="" recommendations="" but="">50%) article summary (25% of assessment mark) article summary has excellent focus on relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings, relevance). demonstrates deep and broad understanding of the theory and research in all three articles. article summary has very good focus on relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings, relevance). very few and very minor errors in understanding of the theory and research in all three articles. article summary is good and mostly focussed on relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings). may have some areas that are somewhat superficial or based on minor errors in understanding --or-- discussion of two articles is very good but discussion of third article could be improved. article summary is acceptable but could be more focussed relevant and key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings). may have some areas that are moderately superficial or based on some minor errors in understanding, reasoning, or logic. --or--discussion of one article is very good but discussion of other two articles could be improved. articles not described, or description is unclear, or discussion is focussed on mostly irrelevant points with limited analysis. or description is based on disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes with no actual context or discussion. very limited or highly superficial analysis, or significant misunderstanding. article analysis (25% of assessment mark) excellent analysis. thoughtful, well-argued comparison of all three articles. clear position with extra careful reasoning and logic. very good analysis. comparative points explained in clear, concise, and accurate manner. clear position with very minor errors in reasoning or logic. good analysis. comparative points are mostly clear and focused. or two comparisons are clear and focused but third/ overall comparison could be improved. solid analysis but could be more focused or clear. or one comparison is clear and focused but other two/overall comparisons could be improved. analytical skills not demonstrated. or analysis describes disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes with no actual insight or analysis. recommendations (25% of assessment mark) excellent recommendations that are based on clear and logical application of the overall article analyses and comparisons. very good recommendations that are based on clear and logical application of the overall article analyses and comparisons. very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. good recommendations but could be more strongly related to the overall article analyses and comparisons. may include some minor errors in reasoning. solid attempt to formulate recommendations but may>