MGT1000 Organisational behaviour and management Marking criteria for assignment: CRITERIA | FAIL
Less than 50% | PASS
50%–64% | CREDIT
65%–74% | DISTINCTION
75%–84% | HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up | TOTAL | Content | No demonstrated understanding of question; not all issues relevant to question have been answered; inaccurate and irrelevant theory/content; obvious content missing | Borderline understanding of question; may not have answered all the issues relevant to the question but has dealt with the major ones; some minor inaccurate and or irrelevant theory/content | Sufficient understanding of question; answers all parts of the question, even if the content is a little uneven in quality; has attempted critique e.g. linked theories or evaluated theory; only very few very minor inaccuracies in content/theory evident | Good understanding of question; answers all parts of the question to a good standard– includes critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question, even if a little of this critique is a little weak in parts; no inaccuracies in content/theory evident; may include some original content | Unequivocal understanding of question; answers all its parts comprehensively and accurately and excellent critical analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question; usually includes some original content; no inaccuracies in the theory / content | | Mark out of 30 | <15 | 15-19.4 | 19.5-22.4 | 22.5-25.4 | 25.5 | 26 | Referencing and sources | Scholarly use of sources – No real use of sources to build a case; Cut and paste source material; may include irrelevant quotes that do not add value or make sense; Technical use of sources – poor or absent in-text referencing; insufficient sources of sufficient quality; no or inadequate list of references | Scholarship- Some attempt made to build case using sources, but essay relies on restating/describing sources; no evidence of critical analysisTechnique- sound attempt at in-text references and list of references but some minor errors; sufficient number and quality of sources in list of references | Scholarship – Student has consistently used sources to build a case, rather than just describing what the sources saidTechnique – sound attempt at in-text referencing and list of references but may include minor errors; good number and quality of sources in list of references | Scholarship – Student has built a coherent case using multiple sources, rather than just describing what other sources have said; Critical appraisal of evidence from sourcesTechnique – minimal to no errors in in-text referencing and list of references; very good number and quality of sources in list of references | Scholarship – Student has built a strong case using multiple sources; Evidence of highly developed analysis; student opinion has been well supported by expert sourcesTechnique – virtually no errors in in-text referencing and list of references; excellent number and quality of sources in list of references | | Mark out of 20 | <10 | 10–12.8 | 12.9–14.8 | 14.9–16.8 | 16.9 | 16 | Structure | No idea of structure and logical progression of argument | Some evidence of structure and progression of argument; intro, body, conclusion. | Clear evidence of structure and progression of argument; but internal problems in structure still evident | Clear structure and progression of argument; well constructed essay | Structured argument; clear intro and conclusion; logical and excellent progression of argument | | Mark out of 30 | <15 | 15–19.4 | 19.5–22.4 | 22.5–25.4 | 25.5 | 27 | Presentation/ written expression | Very hard to understand the writing; very jumbled sequencing of ideas; does not follow presentation guidelines | Some passages a little jumbled /hard to understand writing; follows presentation guidelines | Some evidence of fluency in writing; no obvious errors in grammar or syntax; follows presentation guidelines | Clear and fluent writing; follows presentation guidelines | Well constructed and crafted piece of work; a pleasure to read; follows presentation guidelines | | Mark out of 20 | <10 | 10–12.8 | 12.9-14.8 | 14.9-16.8 | 16.9 | 18 | TOTAL | | | | | | 87/100 |

Excellent work. I appreciate the time and effort invested in this paper. You have used a good range of sources to build a complex and interesting case. Overall, the quality was excellent and it was a pleasure to read your essay. It showed a sound application of Structural theory, Evaluative theory and Case study. You have done an excellent job in terms of structuring your paper. It had a very clear logical progression from introduction through to conclusion. You even managed to write exactly 2,200 words! If you were under the word limit you could have done some critical appraisal of evidence from the sources.
Thank you for your hard work and best wishes for the exam.

A case study conducted of the United Nations International School of Melbourne posed questions relating to its current structure and culture. This essay will argue that elements of the schools culture needs to change while the school’s fundamental structure needs to be completely overhauled to ensure a successful future for the school. Firstly, it will be argued that the school has a low level of people orientation, which is adversely affecting job satisfaction, organisational citizenship, turnover and students within the school. Next team orientation will be explored, arguing that a successful subculture should overtake the ineffective dominant culture to ensure a harmonious work environment and increases to organisational citizenship. Then it will be argued that the school’s future depends on nurturing an innovative culture and achieving this requires the negative correlation between innovation and bureaucracy to be addressed. Furthermore, it will be argued that the current bureaucratic structure of the school is decreasing job satisfaction and reducing organisational citizenship. Finally, it will be argued that bureaucracy is an out-dated form of control as an organisation’s culture should facilitate this function. This will be clearly supported by evidence of the school’s crumbling chain of command and inefficient level of centralisation. Clearly the school’s problems at first glance are easily seen with management’s low consideration for people.
The management culture at the school is failing to acknowledge that their decisions are impacting upon people within the organisation. Robbins et al. (2011, p. 466) refers to people orientation as ‘the degree to which management decisions take into consideration the effect of outcomes on people within the organisation’. Management introduced a new I.T. system to meet the schools data requirements. However, many employees had a great aversion to this new I.T. system. ‘Josh Crane stated, “Administration [is] very happy now that they can run all their ‘lovely’ reports… But the administration around here ignores the fact that teaching staff have less time each day to do their teaching because of time wasted entering data.” (Case study).’ Organisations that consult employees about organisational change will experience increases to job satisfaction and an overall cohesive organisational environment (Tsai 2011). Management has clearly disregarded the impact of the I.T. system on staff which clearly indicates the organisation is low in people orientation.
A low level of people orientation within the school’s culture is causing an organisational wide demoralising effect on staff and if left unaddressed this will increase employee turnover. The organisational wide opinion about the I.T. system was that, ‘the program was not liked by most teaching staff. (Case study).’ Frustration was clearly vented by Sophia Jacobs, who stated that the “school’s current teaching staff is the school’s biggest asset and that any IT systems should work for the teaching staff not against them” (Case study). Bruce also recognised this frustration by acknowledging that “the attendance program could have been more user friendly” (Case study). When employees experience a hindrance in performing routine duties, job satisfaction decreases and turnover increases (Podsakoff, LePine, J & LePine, M 2007). The I.T. system is evidently a hindrance to employees throughout the organisation and provides a clear illustration that the organisation’s culture does not consider its people. For this reason the school needs to revitalise its culture or face the inevitable departure of vital human resources.
Even if the school replaces lost human resources, the effects of a culture low in consideration for people stretches beyond staff. Managers practicing in education must be mindful about the relationships built with employees when the culture does not consider its people as this can diminish a student’s educational experience. Adrian Wright can recall “being ‘blindsided’ by a question from the Principal about a ‘special project’… It was the first I had heard about it, [and]… I was reprimanded by the Principal for not being on top of my job.” (Case study). A positive relationship between management and teachers increases organisational citizenship as the behaviour is modelled for students, which is essential for successful outcomes for teaching professionals (Elstada, Christophersena &Turmoa 2012, pp. 176-177). Equally important is when teachers exercise organisational citizenship behaviours a student’s educational experience is enhanced (Jimmieson, Hannam, & Yeo 2010, p. 459). Clearly the school’s culture is low in consideration for people which explains why a positive relationship between management and teachers is not present. As a result teachers will not engage in organisational citizenship, which will reduce teaching outcomes, negatively impacting student educational experiences and causing tension between co-workers.
Most employees within the school are feeling animosity towards their co-workers, due to the low level of team orientation in the majority of the school’s culture. Team orientation refers to the ‘degree to which work activities are organised around teams rather than individuals’ (Robbins et al. 2011, p. 466). Bruce stressed the importance of team work in the organisational culture by stating, “There still needs to be much more team work within and across sections of the school.” (Case study). However, Peter Wilson’s words illustrated a sentiment felt by most in the school when he said “We used to have a more cooperative spirit in the school… But now people are much less cooperative…it is every man for himself.” (Case study). Meanwhile, Nella Young from Bruce’s section conveyed “we are a pretty tight bunch [and] we look after each other… Bruce encouraged us to think of ourselves as a team.”(Case study). Cultures high in team orientation will result in employees experiencing harmonious relationships with co-workers and a subsequent increase in organisational citizenship (Erkutlu 2011, p. 537). Since employees within Bruce’s section are evidently experiencing harmonious relationships, this would indicate a subculture within the school that is high in team orientation. By comparison, the dominate culture of the school is evidently low in team orientation which is causing hostility between co-workers, decreasing organisational citizenship and restricting innovation.
The school is incapable of organisational growth in the future if it cannot adopt an innovative culture. Innovation is defined by Robbins et al. (2011, p. 466) as the ‘degree to which employees are encouraged to be innovative and take risks.’ Bruce highlighted the low level of innovation currently ingrained in the school’s culture when he stated that the “school still has a long way to go to catch up with other schools … It was an incredibly frustrating place to work when trying to introduce change.”(Case study). This viewpoint was supported in the words of Nella Young who asserted that the “school has been in need of some major innovation…The Principal and the Board have been so risk averse we were really getting left behind compared to other schools.”(Case study).When an organisation is behind others in the same field, management should focus on decentralising its authority as this allows for an innovative environment which is essential for organisational growth (Raisch 2008). Evidently the school is low on the innovation front, which is clearly necessary for the future growth of the school. Since a strategy of decentralisation is required to create an innovative culture, the success of revitalising the school’s culture is partially interdependent on its structure.
The bureaucratic structure of the school is negatively impacting on innovation, which is a necessary factor to the future success of the school. Bureaucracies are fundamentally built on centralised authority which flows through a chain of command to highly formalized departments with tight rules and regulations (Robbins et al. 2011, pp. 445-446). The school has specialized teaching departments with clear policies and procedures and a chain of command which all staff are intended to follow. A high level of bureaucracy is evident in the words of Adrian Wright, when he passed comments about Bruce’s activities across departments, “The fact was that Bruce did not have the authority to allocate work to staff in my section without my knowledge and permission.” (Case study). Raub (2008) suggests that organisations that limit bureaucracy have higher levels of organizational citizenship than their counter parts. Bureaucracies also decrease job satisfaction whilst hindering innovation (Raub 2008, P. 180). Evidently the school is highly bureaucratic which is destroying any chance for an innovative culture and adversely impacting upon employees. Clearly the current bureaucratic structure of the school and its high levels of control need to change to ensure its future success.
The schools current method of bureaucratic control is an out-dated and ineffective means of achieving organisational performance and compliance. Bureaucracies cause people to strictly follow rules, which is only effective when standard situations are confronted (Robbins et al. 2011, p. 446). After the introduction of the I.T. system, the school ‘introduced various incentives to encourage staff to use the system and sanctions against those staff who did not use the system (Case study).’ However, ‘High School received most of the rewards… [while] staff in the Primary, and Middle sections received most of the sanctions (Case study).’ Raelin (2011) asserts that Bureaucracy is an out-dated and inefficient form of achieving employee compliance. Employee compliance should only be attained through the culture of an organisation as this increases employee motivation and productivity (Raelin 2011, pp. 139-140). Clearly the introduction of the I.T. system would easily be considered beyond a standard situation and the compliance method introduced was indeed bureaucratic. Since more departments received sanctions than rewards, this would clearly indicate the bureaucratic structure of the school along with the process of communicating authority needs to change to improve organisational performance, compliance and employee motivation.
Employees within the school are experiencing confusion over a breakdown in the process used to communicate authority. According to Robbins et al. (2011, p. 442) a chain of command is ‘an unbroken line of authority that extends from the top of the organisation to the lowest echelon’. In order for the chain of command to operate, the unity of command must be followed, which mandates ‘that a subordinate should have only one superior to he or she is directly responsible’ (Robbins et al. 2011, p. 442). The chain of command was being compromised when illustrated by the words of Adrian Wright’s, “The lines of authority became quite blurred… Bruce… began cutting across our authority by taking on direct management of [our] staff.’’ (Case study). Employees will only break the chain of command when facing troubled workplace procedures or to bring awareness to an issue (Kassing 2009). Clearly Bruce’s act of breaking the chain of command was not motivated by any form of personal gain. Evidently Bruce’s actions simply highlighted the in-efficient bureaucratic structure of the school and specifically, the need change the centralisation of authority.
The current structure of the school and its centralisation of authority are causing negative implications for employees. Centralisation or decentralisation refers to the level in which decision making authority is invested in a single person or spread between many people (Robbins et al. 2011, pp. 442-443). The level of centralisation invested in the Principal was evident in the words of Adrian Wright when he said “which of these projects were sanctioned by the Principal and which were not.” (Case study). Even the general perception that Bruce’s ‘close working relationship with the Principal (Case study)’ was utilized to ‘garner resources for his section (Case study)’ demonstrates the decision making power invested in the Principal. Employees in decentralised organisations feel more involved in the decision making process than centralised organisations, resulting in organisational difficulties being resolved swiftly (Robbins et al. 2011, p. 443). Organisations where decision making is decentralised will also increase employee job satisfaction (Robbins et al. 2011, p. 455). Similarly, the decentralising of power will ensure the long term survival of an organisation (Martínez-León & Martínez-García 2011). Evidently, the school’s authority is heavily centralised, which is compromising employee job satisfaction. Clearly the school needs to focus on changing its bureaucratic structure by decentralising its decision making process and re-evaluating its chain of command to ensure employee job satisfaction and the long term future of the school.
This essay has clearly proven that elements of the schools culture must change while the school’s fundamental structure must be completely overhauled to ensure its future. Evidently the school has a low level of people orientation, which is decreasing job satisfaction and diminishing organisational citizenship. As a result, turnover will increase and the educational experience for students will be negatively impacted. In addition, the successful team orientated subculture must assist the recovery of the current dominant team culture as this will allow for a harmonious work environment and increase organisational citizenship. The school must also develop an innovative culture to ensure its future growth; however, this is interdependent on changing the in-efficient bureaucratic structure. The current bureaucratic structure is again obstructing innovation, decreasing job satisfaction and reducing organisational citizenship. Similarly, the current bureaucratic method of gaining compliance is obviously out-dated, as this can only be achieved through organisation’s culture. Such inadequacies have been clearly highlighted by the crumbling chain of command and inefficient level of centralisation. For this reason, the school needs to focus on decentralisation as this will solve organisational problems swiftly, increase job satisfaction and ensure its future. Clearly, the inadequacies in the current culture and structure are failing the organisation and its people. Thus changing the school’s current culture and structure will not to only ensure its own future, but the future of every human within it.

List of references:
Elstada, E, Christophersena, KA & Turmoa, A 2012, ‘Exploring antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour among teachers at Norwegian folk high schools’, Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 34 no. 2 pp. 175-189.
Erkutlu, H 2011, ‘The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 32, no. 6, pp.532-554.
Jimmieson, NL, Hannam, RL & Yeo, GB 2010, ‘Teacher organizational citizenship behaviours and job efficacy: Implications for student quality of school life’, British journal of psychology, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 453-479.
Kassing, W 2009, ’Breaking the Chain of Command: Making Sense of Employee Circumvention’, Journal of Business Communication, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 311-334.
Martínez-León, IM & Martínez-García, J 2011, ‘The influence of organizational structure on organizational learning’, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 537-566.
Podsakoff, NP, LePine, JA & LePine, MA 2007, ‘Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis’, The Journal of applied psychology, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 438-454.
Raelin, A 2011, ’The End of Managerial Control?’, Group & Organization Management, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 135-160.

Raisch, S 2008, ‘Balanced Structures: Designing Organizations for Profitable Growth’, Long Range Planning, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 483-508.
Raub, S 2008, ‘Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structure on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 179-186.
Robbins, SP, Millett, B, Boyle, MV & Judge, T 2011, ‘Organisational behaviour’, 6th edn, Pearson Australia, New South Wales, Australia.
Tsai, Y 2011, ‘Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behaviour and job satisfaction’, BMC health services research, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 98.

.