Organizational Behavior:
Emerging Knowledge,
ST
Global Reality – 10th Edition
UV
INSTRUCTOR’S
IA
?_
MANUAL
AP
PR
Steven L. McShane
Mary Ann Von Glinow
OV
Comprehensive Instructor’s Manual for
ED
Instructors and Students
??
© Steven L. McShane & Mary Ann Von Glinow. All rights reserved. Reproduction or
distribution without permission is prohibited.
©MEDCONNOISSEUR
, Test Bank for Organizational Behavior (10th Edition)
Authors: Steven L. McShane, Mary Ann Von Glinow
ST
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behavior
Chapter 2: Individual Differences: Personality and Values
Chapter 3: Perceiving Ourselves and Others in Organizations
UV
Chapter 4: Workplace Emotions, Attitudes, and Stress
Chapter 5: Foundations of Employee Motivation
Chapter 6: Applied Performance Practices
Chapter 7: Decision Making and Creativity
Chapter 8: Team Dynamics
IA
Chapter 9: Communicating in Teams and Organizations
Chapter 10: Power and Influence in the Workplace
Chapter 11: Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace
?_
Chapter 12: Leadership in Organizational Settings
Chapter 13: Designing Organizational Structures
Chapter 14: Organizational Culture
Chapter 15: Organizational Change
AP
PR
OV
ED
??
©MEDCONNOISSEUR
, Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behavior
ARCTIC MINING CONSULTANTS
ST
These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L. McShane, Interconnected Knowledge.
Primary Case Topics
UV
Motivation, individual performance (MARS), leadership, and team dynamics
Case Synopsis
A crew of four people staked claims for Arctic Mining Consultants. The case describes their production over
IA
the seven days, as well as incidents that occurred over this time. In particular, the case describes how the
leader (Parker) reacts to the lower performance of Millar and the other crew members.
This is one of my favorite cases because it covers diverse topics and has a personal touch to it. Students seem
to be very involved in the case—it is written in a way that they can easily visualize (even though few of us
?_
have worked in these harsh conditions). We don‘t have an epilogue, except to say that Millar works in the
forest industry in a management position.
Symptoms
AP
The main symptoms in this case are that Millar‘s work effort decreased by the end of the project, Millar was
thinking about quitting during the assignment, Millar did not accept subsequent job offers from Parker, and
Millar felt dissatisfied with the assignment and with Parker.
Problem Analysis
PR
The main problems in this case relate to the issues of motivation, leadership, and team dynamics.
Motivation
Expectancy theory explains why Millar didn‘t work as hard at the end of the assignment, and why he did not
OV
accept further assignments. Millar had a low E-to-P expectancy due to Parker‘s poor coaching. Rather than
working with Millar on further improving his performance, and rewarding Millar for his good performance,
Parker criticized Millar. This criticism continually weakened Millar‘s perception that he is able to perform
this type of work. Millar‘s low perception of competence made him ―give up‖ during the last day. (This is
significant because Millar‘s extra effort would have enabled the crew to complete the assignment on time.)
ED
Millar‘s lack of effort on the last day can also be explained by his P-to-O expectancy. Specifically, Millar
believed that he received insults from Parker no matter how well he performed the task. Notice that on the
days that Millar completed 8.5 and 7 lengths, Parker said nothing. On days when Millar‘s performance was
lower, Parker criticized Millar.
??
The P-to-O expectancy also explains the effect of pay and the bonus on Millar‘s motivation. Specifically, on
the last day, Millar felt that getting an extra day‘s pay was almost as good as receiving the bonus, particularly
considering the hard work (a negative outcome) he would have to endure to complete the work by the end of
the day.
Page 1-4
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
, Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behavior
(NOTE: Rather than using expectancy theory, students can analyze Millar‘s motivation through behavior
modification, particularly Parker‘s use of punishment. Equity theory might also explain Millar‘s behavior on
the last day of work. Specifically, he compared himself to Boyce, who continually had lower performance
than Millar yet received less verbal abuse. Millar adjusted his inputs—job performance—so that his
ST
outcome/input ratio would be balanced with Boyce‘s ratio.)
UV
IA
?_
AP
PR
OV
ED
??
Page 1-5
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
Emerging Knowledge,
ST
Global Reality – 10th Edition
UV
INSTRUCTOR’S
IA
?_
MANUAL
AP
PR
Steven L. McShane
Mary Ann Von Glinow
OV
Comprehensive Instructor’s Manual for
ED
Instructors and Students
??
© Steven L. McShane & Mary Ann Von Glinow. All rights reserved. Reproduction or
distribution without permission is prohibited.
©MEDCONNOISSEUR
, Test Bank for Organizational Behavior (10th Edition)
Authors: Steven L. McShane, Mary Ann Von Glinow
ST
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behavior
Chapter 2: Individual Differences: Personality and Values
Chapter 3: Perceiving Ourselves and Others in Organizations
UV
Chapter 4: Workplace Emotions, Attitudes, and Stress
Chapter 5: Foundations of Employee Motivation
Chapter 6: Applied Performance Practices
Chapter 7: Decision Making and Creativity
Chapter 8: Team Dynamics
IA
Chapter 9: Communicating in Teams and Organizations
Chapter 10: Power and Influence in the Workplace
Chapter 11: Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace
?_
Chapter 12: Leadership in Organizational Settings
Chapter 13: Designing Organizational Structures
Chapter 14: Organizational Culture
Chapter 15: Organizational Change
AP
PR
OV
ED
??
©MEDCONNOISSEUR
, Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behavior
ARCTIC MINING CONSULTANTS
ST
These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L. McShane, Interconnected Knowledge.
Primary Case Topics
UV
Motivation, individual performance (MARS), leadership, and team dynamics
Case Synopsis
A crew of four people staked claims for Arctic Mining Consultants. The case describes their production over
IA
the seven days, as well as incidents that occurred over this time. In particular, the case describes how the
leader (Parker) reacts to the lower performance of Millar and the other crew members.
This is one of my favorite cases because it covers diverse topics and has a personal touch to it. Students seem
to be very involved in the case—it is written in a way that they can easily visualize (even though few of us
?_
have worked in these harsh conditions). We don‘t have an epilogue, except to say that Millar works in the
forest industry in a management position.
Symptoms
AP
The main symptoms in this case are that Millar‘s work effort decreased by the end of the project, Millar was
thinking about quitting during the assignment, Millar did not accept subsequent job offers from Parker, and
Millar felt dissatisfied with the assignment and with Parker.
Problem Analysis
PR
The main problems in this case relate to the issues of motivation, leadership, and team dynamics.
Motivation
Expectancy theory explains why Millar didn‘t work as hard at the end of the assignment, and why he did not
OV
accept further assignments. Millar had a low E-to-P expectancy due to Parker‘s poor coaching. Rather than
working with Millar on further improving his performance, and rewarding Millar for his good performance,
Parker criticized Millar. This criticism continually weakened Millar‘s perception that he is able to perform
this type of work. Millar‘s low perception of competence made him ―give up‖ during the last day. (This is
significant because Millar‘s extra effort would have enabled the crew to complete the assignment on time.)
ED
Millar‘s lack of effort on the last day can also be explained by his P-to-O expectancy. Specifically, Millar
believed that he received insults from Parker no matter how well he performed the task. Notice that on the
days that Millar completed 8.5 and 7 lengths, Parker said nothing. On days when Millar‘s performance was
lower, Parker criticized Millar.
??
The P-to-O expectancy also explains the effect of pay and the bonus on Millar‘s motivation. Specifically, on
the last day, Millar felt that getting an extra day‘s pay was almost as good as receiving the bonus, particularly
considering the hard work (a negative outcome) he would have to endure to complete the work by the end of
the day.
Page 1-4
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
, Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behavior
(NOTE: Rather than using expectancy theory, students can analyze Millar‘s motivation through behavior
modification, particularly Parker‘s use of punishment. Equity theory might also explain Millar‘s behavior on
the last day of work. Specifically, he compared himself to Boyce, who continually had lower performance
than Millar yet received less verbal abuse. Millar adjusted his inputs—job performance—so that his
ST
outcome/input ratio would be balanced with Boyce‘s ratio.)
UV
IA
?_
AP
PR
OV
ED
??
Page 1-5
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
