Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment – Canada.

Unit Title : Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report
Assessment Type : Case Study Report Assignment
The purpose of this group assignment is to provide you with an opportunity to analyze an OE case study, applying the specific case study methodology (Appendix I).
Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment – Canada.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment - Canada.

1.Written Report
1.1 The Basics
a. You need to study the case of BERNARD’S (Appendix II). Your written report should include all elements as follows:
• Executive summary
• Identification of problems and issues – what is the problem?
• Analysis of the situation
• Identify your decision criteria
• Propose some alternatives and briefly evaluate
• Provide your recommendations and develop a plan of action
b. Use 11-point Times New Roman, 2.54 cm margins, left justified, double-spaced, and single-sided. The body of the paper will be 10-12 pages (excluding the title page and the bibliography). Any pages beyond the maximum will not be read and will not be included in your grade.
c. All in-text citations and references must be written in accordance with American Psychological Association

Appendix I.
The Guidelines for Case Study

1.How to Approach a Case

1.1. First reading. A rapid first reading of the case is helpful in getting a general idea of what the case is about. The objective in the first reading is to become familiar with the type of business, the apparent problems, the kinds of information, the people, their roles and responsibilities, and other major factors involved in the case.

1.2. Determine perspective. Case analysis cannot be approached as an academic problem. You cannot assume the passive role of an observer when you analyze cases. Instead, you must assume an active role by taking the perspective of the decision-maker in the case (usually given). Your approach should be, “What would I do if I were this person?” Remember that it is about “What would I do now, given what has transpired ─ it is not about “What should I have done?” Certainly you will need to analyze the past to make sense of the situation, but your goal is NOT to figure out who to blame. Rather, it is about what options I should consider and what should I do now.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment – Canada.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment - Canada.

1.3. Second reading. The second reading is conducted slowly and carefully in order to gain a comprehensive grasp of the facts. A thorough second reading facilitates the organization and
analysis of the facts and the identification of any inconsistencies in the case.

1.4. Application of case analysis elements. After the careful second reading, the focus moves to
completing the case analysis format outlined below.

2.Elements of Case Analysis

2.1. Identification of Problems and Issues. Problems and issues in the case need to be identified and
prioritized. This step is crucial as it will provide the basis of your analysis. When identifying problems and issues it is useful to ask yourself the following questions:

• Have I listed the problems and issues in order of importance and immediacy?
• Have I identified underlying problems or merely symptoms of problems?
• Are the problems I have identified free of judgment and evaluation; that is, have I been objective?

2.2. Analysis of the situation. In this step, application theory is utilized to determine the causes and
implications of the identified problems. The following questions may prove helpful in your analysis:

• What are the facts? (Distinguish between case fact and someone’s opinion).
• What inferences can I make from the facts? Do the facts support the inferences I have made?
• What theories or models could I apply to this data in order to better understand what is going on and why?
• Have I made good use of theory?
• Have I examined the apparent consistencies and inconsistencies in the case?
• Are there multiple causes to the identified problems?
• Have I drawn clear implications and conclusions from my analysis?

When developing your analysis, ensure that you are NOT rehashing the case or evaluating ─ what should have been done or who is to blame. Your task in analysis is to understand why things have happened as they have.

2.3. Establish Decision Criteria. What criteria will you use to make your decision? The criteria may be
qualitative or quantitative; however, it must be specific and clearly stated. These criteria will help you assess alternative solutions so that you will choose the best alternative. Your final recommendation must support your criteria established. An example of decision criteria would be: minimum 15% return on investment with no loss in job satisfaction of organizational members.

2.4. Generation of alternative solutions: Generate a few alternatives and evaluate these alternatives against stated criteria. When generating alternatives, pros and cons, and consequences, don’t settle for only one or two or confine yourself to the obvious; in all cases, a reasonable number and range should be examined. Alternatives should represent the major possible options the decision maker needs to consider and not be a laundry list of possible actions. If there is no real choice amongst alternatives, you probably do not have a good list of alternatives! These more detailed elements of the alternative that is selected can be set out in the recommended action plan.

2.5. Decision. This step consists of a statement of your decision and a brief rationale for that decision (which alternative or combination of alternatives you recommend and why).Your decision should be consistent with your analysis and with the stated criteria.

2.6.Recommendation(s) and Action plan. An action plan is the means of implementing your decision
and consists of a “timed sequence of conditional moves.” The action plan specifies who does what,
when they do it, and how it is to be accomplished (timed sequence). The plan also anticipates the
consequences of particular actions and suggests contingencies (conditional moves) should things not unfold as originally planned. A decision tree is helpful in illustrating contingencies. You can evaluate your decision and action plan by asking yourself:

• Do my recommendations fit my analysis? Am I consistent?
• Have I addressed all the identified problems and issues in my proposed solution?
• Have I identified the implications of my recommendations?
• Have I been specific and clear in my recommendations?
• Would I know what to do to implement my plan if I were reading the analysis for the first time?

In developing your action plan, remember that you are addressing what you should do now ─ NOT
what you should have done.

Appendix II.
Given below is the organizational structure of one of the branches of Bernard’s, a department store chain. The manager of the store reports to a General Manager located at head office. The merchandise buyers, consumer research staff, auditors, public relations manager, and many other staff specialists are also located at the head office.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment – Canada.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment - Canada.

Bernard’s has many branch stores throughout Canada where they have achieved a reputation for good quality merchandise as well as excellent service. Financially, some branches are doing better than others, and in the case of one particular branch, the general manager has become quite concerned because of the downward trend of its sales figures. Under pressure from head office, the manager of this branch left the company, Bernard’s general manager decided to hire someone younger with a university background to take over the position. The general manager was convinced that what the store needed was dynamic leadership and a different management style that would improve motivation and freedom to perform at lower levels. This would be in contrast to the prevailing autocratic approach in this organization.

A young woman by the name of Jan Mills, now employed at head office, was transferred to this branch as its manager. Jan had a Commerce degree from Ryerson University with a specialization in Retail Management and was hired three years ago as a “management trainee.” It was known to everyone that in three to four years she would be given full charge of a large store. Fortunately the vacancy arose at an opportune moment—just when Jan had completed her training period. During the past three years, Jan had moved from store to store and had been exposed to many different functions at head office. Jan was a dynamic person and had already shown great promise in her performance so far. The G.M. was convinced that Jan was the kind of person that the ailing branch needed as its manager.

Jan had eleven supervisors, or section heads, including five departmental managers, who reported to her directly. Reporting to the department managers were about eighty-five sales people. In addition, there were another 120 employees. All in all, Jan had a fair-sized store to manage. She was responsible for the human, as well as economic, well-being of the organization. Obviously, as a leader, she had to make many decisions and take actions which might not please everybody. For all practical purposes Jan was on her own as the head office was far away and the G.M. did not interfere in the day-to-day decision making. Jan had, at least in theory, the assistance of an HR officer in dealing with employee problems. However, in practice, the HR officer was mainly concerned with the recruitment of sales and secretarial staff as well as
their training. It was a “one-man department.”

Bill Lynch, the customer relations officer, had been with the store for many years. He was just over 40 years of age—considerably older than Jan Mills. In fact he had been one of the contenders for the manager’s post. Michael Mc Master, the technical writing supervisor, was another person who had considered himself to be a candidate. He had been with the company for over twelve years and headed a group of four writers. He believed that the work done by his group was fundamentally important for the store and was of a nature that not many others could handle. Michael was a strong man, and to a certain extent disliked by the other section heads but his own group liked him as a boss. He could always be counted on to support the cause of his own group.

After Jan took over as manager, one of the first problems she confronted was that of friction between Michael Mc Master and Brenda Costain, the catalogue supervisor. Michael, in preparing the catalogue, tended to ignore requests made by the catalogue supervisor. He felt that the design and content of the catalogue was his responsibility and did the job that he thought best. Usually he totally disagreed with the demands made by the catalogue workers as to the location of items, etc. There was no co-operation between these two groups. Only a couple of days after Jan had taken over, the catalogue supervisor brought the matter to Jan’s notice and requested appropriate action.

Another immediate problem that was brought to Jan’s attention was that of Bill Lynch’s attitude towards the department sales managers. As a group they complained to Jan about Bill’s bad manners and ill treatment of salespeople and even sales managers. According to the sales managers, whenever Bill received customer complaints, he would make a big fuss including making the salespeople’s lives miserable. Quite often he ignored the proper channels and went directly to the salesperson concerned and played hell with him or her. He also made a point of reporting these customer complaints to the store manager.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment – Canada.

Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment - Canada.

So far, Jan Mills had held only one meeting with all the supervisors, or section heads. She was trying to get to know her employees and also to communicate to them her general managerial approach, policies and expectations. However, she felt that she had not been able to achieve much so far. She did, however, sense the friction between different supervisors. She also learned that some of her employees had close ties with certain members of the board of directors. She also realized that several of her staff aspired to replace her as store manager. She was also aware of the fact that Bill Lynch, as well as Michael Mc Master had direct access to head office and exercised a great deal of influence within the organization. Employees were quite accustomed to an easy-going approach to work and a “leniency” pattern of management.Most things (including reports and instructions) were done informally and in a rather casual
manner.

Jan is determined to put an end to the present style of operations. In fact, she is going to lay things on the line. Copies of rules and reporting procedures have already been sent to every supervisor. She intends to “tighten things up” and run an efficient organization so that the improved earnings of the store will offset any detrimental influence with the board of directors that any of her subordinates might have.

ORDER This Organizational Effectiveness Case Study Report Assignment NOW And Get Instant Discount

Order Your Assignment