refer the attachments
1 MGT5OBR ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR Assessment 3: Group Assignment This group assignment requires you to apply theoretical concepts covered in the class to a fictional business. This task gives you the opportunity to work collaboratively and to develop team-based skills. You will work in groups of 4 to 5 students (subject to your workshop facilitator’s approval) to complete the assignment. Assessment Task You will be acting as a team of consultants to a fictional global professional services firm with expertise in accounting, auditing and tax advisory. In all aspects, the firm is comparable to KPMG. Your task is to produce a report to advise the organisation’s Australian unit (a business comparable to KPMG Australia) on what should be done to effectively manage employees. In the report you need to: 1. Briefly describe the fictional firm. 2. Identify and analyse four key issues concerning the management of its employees. 3. Provide recommendations. The report should have the following sections: • Title page • Table of contents • Introduction o State the purpose of the report. o Briefly describe your fictional business. Choose a name for it and in your description focus on aspects relevant to your subsequent analysis. For instance, we know motivation is contingent on the types of employees. If you choose to talk about motivation, you might describe the type of employees at your fictional business. o Provide a brief overview of the report. • Issue analysis and recommendation o Identify and analyse four (4) key issues concerning the management of employees. Analyse each key issue using one organisational behaviour theory or concept. The issues selected must be spread across at least 3 of the subject’s modules. For each of the identified key issues, provide recommendations for the Australian unit of the fictional business. o For each of the identified key issues, briefly describe the chosen theory or concept, then explain in detail why and how it is relevant for the management of employees of your fictional business. Finally, draw specific and actionable recommendations. Coverage of each of the four key issues should be roughly equal in word count. For instance, you may identify employee motivation as one key issue. To analyse the issue, you might select one motivation theory from Module 3. You would briefly describe the theory. You would then explain in detail why this theory is relevant for the employees of your fictional business, and how you will use the theory to improve 2 motivation. Finally, you would draw specific and actionable recommendations for the Australian unit of your fictional business. • Conclusion o Summarise the report findings. • Reference list You need to use the APA or Harvard Referencing System. Length: The total length of the assignment is a maximum of 4,000 words (+/- 10%) (Title page, table of contents and reference list are excluded from the word count. In-text citations are included.) Weighting: 30% of your total mark. Due date: First Sunday of Central Examination Period by 11:55pm Submission: Submit via the LMS (Assignment Turnitin). Hard copies are NOT required Format: The document should be written as clear, concise report. It is important that your report has a logical flow and good structure, makes use of relevant headings and subheadings, 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. MGT5OBR: Assessment 3 Marking Guide Group Assignment CRITERIA* A: Excellent (> 80 %) B: Very good (70 – 79%) C: Good (60 – 69%) D: Acceptable (50 – 59%) N: Unacceptable (<50%) introduction="" (10%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" excellent="" introduction="" which="" clearly="" defines="" the="" fictional="" business.="" sharply="" focused="" on="" relevant="" and="" key="" organisation="" details.="" (8-10="" marks)="" very="" good="" introduction="" with="" concise="" description="" of="" the="" fictional="" business="" and="" clear="" focus="" on="" relevant="" and="" key="" organisation="" details.="" (7="" marks)="" summary="" of="" fictional="" business="" is="" mostly="" clear="" and="" concise.="" some="" irrelevant="" details="" or="" could="" have="" more="" detail="" on="" some="" key="" information.="" (6="" marks)="" summary="" of="" fictional="" business="" provided.="" some="" details="" inappropriate="" or="" unclear.="" (5="" marks)="" summary="" of="" fictional="" business="" lacks="" focus="" on="" key="" or="" relevant="" details.="">50%)>< 5="" marks)="" issue="" identification="" and="" analysis="" (50%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" in="" depth="" analysis="" undertaken.="" relevant="" ob="" theory="" or="" concepts="" from="" at="" least="" 3="" modules="" are="" clearly="" explained="" and="" applied="" to="" the="" fictional="" business.="" demonstrates="" strong="" critical="" or="" evaluative="" thinking="" about="" how="" relevant="" theories="" &/or="" concepts="" are="" applied;="" clear="" understanding="" of="" how="" and="" why="" they="" are="" used.="" excellent="" linkages="" between="" the="" theory="" and="" the="" fictional="" business.="" (40-50="" marks)="" very="" good="" analysis="" undertaken.="" relevant="" ob="" theory="" or="" concepts="" from="" at="" least="" 3="" modules="" are="" clearly="" explained="" and="" applied="" to="" the="" fictional="" business.="" very="" few="" and="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning,="" accuracy="" or="" relevance.="" very="" good="" linkage="" between="" the="" theory="" and="" the="" fictional="" business.="" (35-39="" marks)="" good="" analysis="" undertaken.="" ob="" theory="" or="" concepts="" described="" and="" applied="" to="" fictional="" business.="" includes="" some="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning,="" accuracy="" or="" relevance.="" may="" discuss="" ob="" concepts="" or="" theories="" from="" fewer="" than="" 3="" modules,="" but="" discussion="" of="" concepts="" from="" other="" modules="" is="" generally="" very="" good.="" solid="" linkage="" between="" the="" theory="" and="" the="" case="" study.="" (30-34="" marks)="" solid="" analysis="" undertaken.="" ob="" theory="" or="" concepts="" described="" and="" applied="" to="" fictional="" business,="" but="" may="" have="" some="" minor="" or="" a="" few="" major="" errors="" in="" reasoning,="" accuracy="" or="" relevance.="" may="" discuss="" ob="" concepts="" or="" theories="" from="" fewer="" than="" 3="" modules.="" superficial="" linkages="" between="" the="" theory="" and="" the="" case="" study="" (25-29="" marks)="" analytical="" skills="" not="" demonstrated.="" does="" not="" describe="" or="" apply="" ob="" theory="" or="" concepts,="" or="" is="" mostly="" inaccurate="" or="" irrelevant.="" does="" not="" discuss="" concepts="" from="" four="" modules,="" and="" discussion="" is="" generally="" poor="" quality.="" theory="" has="" not="" been="" integrated.="" non-academic="" sources="" used.=""><25 marks="" )="" recommendations="" (20%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" excellent="" recommendations="" that="" are="" clearly="" stated="" and="" well="" supported.="" recommendations="" are="" clearly="" linked="" back="" to="" issues.="" the="" way="" in="" which="" the="" recommendations="" are="" communicated="" is="" very="" clear,="" compelling="" and="" inspiring.="" (16-20="" marks)="" very="" good="" recommendations="" that="" are="" supported.="" recommendations="" are="" mostly="" linked="" back="" to="" issues.="" very="" few="" and="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning,="" accuracy="" or="" relevance.="" (14-15="" marks)="" good="" recommendations="" but="" could="" be="" more="" strongly="" related="" to="" the="" overall="" article="" analyses="" and="" comparisons.="" may="" include="" some="" minor="" errors="" in="" reasoning.="" (12-13="" marks)="" solid="" attempt="" to="" formulate="" recommendations="" but="" may="" have="" some="" minor="" or="" a="" few="" errors="" in="" reasoning="" or="" application.="" some="" recommendations="" are="" linked="" back="" to="" issues="" but="" there="" are="" key="" issues="" which="" are="" not="" addressed.="" (10-11="" marks)="" recommendations="" are="" missing="" or="" are="" superficially="" dealt="" with.="" recommendations="" are="" disjointed="" from="" the="" rest="" of="" the="" report.="" inappropriate="" in="" the="" way="" in="" which="" recommendations="" are="" communicated.="">25>< 10="" marks)="" structure="" and="" organisation="" (10%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" sequence="" and="" structure="" are="" logical="" and="" easy="" to="" follow;="" excellent="" overall="" organisation.="" excellent="" conclusion.="" (8-10="" marks)="" sequence="" and="" structure="" are="" logical="" and="" easy="" to="" follow;="" very="" good="" overall="" organisation.="" very="" good="" conclusion.="" (7="" marks)="" structured="" well="" enough="" to="" make="" sense;="" could="" be="" better="" organised="" and="" more="" tightly="" focused="" upon="" the="" topic,="" may="" lack="" focus,="" engagement="" or="" summary.="" good="" conclusion.="" (6="" marks)="" mostly="" coherent="" organisation;="" may="" have="" some="" sections="" where="" difficult="" to="" follow="" reasoning.="" could="" be="" more="" clearly="" and="" logically="" organised.="" solid="" conclusion.="" (5="" marks)="" lacks="" coherent="" organisation="" and="" structure.="" describes="" disconnected="" bits="" of="" information="" or="" many="" direct="" quotes.="" conclusion="" either="" missing="" or="" incorrect.=""><5 marks) writing and referencing (10% of assessment mark) excellent use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature. correct referencing used throughout. excellent grammar and spelling. (8 – 10 marks) very good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature. correct referencing, and good grammar and spelling. (7 marks) good grammar and spelling. may include some errors in referencing and citations. (6 marks) acceptable use of relevant sources of literature. mostly correct referencing. some grammar and spelling errors. (5 marks) few if any literature sources included and poor referencing. poor spelling and grammar. marks)="" writing="" and="" referencing="" (10%="" of="" assessment="" mark)="" excellent="" use="" of="" relevant="" and="" appropriate="" sources="" of="" literature.="" correct="" referencing="" used="" throughout.="" excellent="" grammar="" and="" spelling.="" (8="" –="" 10="" marks)="" very="" good="" use="" of="" relevant="" and="" appropriate="" sources="" of="" literature.="" correct="" referencing,="" and="" good="" grammar="" and="" spelling.="" (7="" marks)="" good="" grammar="" and="" spelling.="" may="" include="" some="" errors="" in="" referencing="" and="" citations.="" (6="" marks)="" acceptable="" use="" of="" relevant="" sources="" of="" literature.="" mostly="" correct="" referencing.="" some="" grammar="" and="" spelling="" errors.="" (5="" marks)="" few="" if="" any="" literature="" sources="" included="" and="" poor="" referencing.="" poor="" spelling="" and="">5 marks) writing and referencing (10% of assessment mark) excellent use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature. correct referencing used throughout. excellent grammar and spelling. (8 – 10 marks) very good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature. correct referencing, and good grammar and spelling. (7 marks) good grammar and spelling. may include some errors in referencing and citations. (6 marks) acceptable use of relevant sources of literature. mostly correct referencing. some grammar and spelling errors. (5 marks) few if any literature sources included and poor referencing. poor spelling and grammar.>