Organizational Behavior Case Study


OrganizationalBehavior Case Study

OrganizationalBehavior Case Study


1.What is open systems theory and how does it apply to both theexternal and internal environments of NappaneeBeerCo.?

Opensystem theory entails the ability of any organization to synchroniseits internal functions with the external continuous dynamism, toremain relevant and viable at all levels (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).This indicates that an organization cannot ignore the influenceemanating from its immediate environment. This is the case since theenvironment not only exerts political, social and economic pressure,but also provide key ingredient for the survival and sustainabilityof the organization (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).As a result, for an organization to successfully prevail upon theexternal environment pressure, the management need to constantlystudy and respond to the market demand to remain viable McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014). Omit all external sources this is unacceptable.

Nappaneebeer Company in its aim of expanding its sales, involved a marketingfirm to market its beer in sporting events. The campaign wassuccessful in that the demand for their keg beer was so high. Thechallenge however was that the organization- Nappanee had not createdan internal environment by alerting their production team of whatthey were up to. Consequently, the external stimuli becameoverwhelming to their production team that they could not meet thenewly created market demand for their keg beer. According to McShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014),the viability of any organization’s plan lies within priorequipping of the internal environment to respond effectively to anystimulated external impact.

Thisimplies that before the marketing team embarked on such an aggressivemarketing campaign they ought to have first liaised with theirproduction team to be well equipped in case of increased demand fortheir keg beer.

Thiscould translate to purchase of more equipment or change in productionline to sustain both high and low priced commodity for the productionsustainability. The failure to do so resulted not only in declinedsale and production of their high priced quality beer, but also intheir new customers’ dissatisfaction by their failure to adequatelymeet the new market demand for their product. The viability ofNappanee beer Company was evidently very questionable. According toMcShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014),an organization should prevail over the progressive market dynamicsby adjusting periodically, its internal processes to survive anyexternal wave. This is taking into consideration the knowledge thatthe environment upon which a company is established plays a majorrole in influencing the cultural, social and economic dynamics of thesaid company. This can only mean that the Nappanee Beer Companymanagement had ignored these factors much to the detriment of itsviability.

  1. How the MARS model of individual behavior help to analyze the possible reasons salespeople may be engaging in this “lateness” behavior at a sales Office

Themars model revolves around vital elements that influence thebehaviour of employees in any organizationMcShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014)

.They include Motivation, Ability, Role perception and the Situationalfactors. These factors though maybe depend with an individual’sinterest and or aspirations, are in a major way correlated. Accordingto McShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014),unless an organizational manager responds to the four elements, thegeneral performance of the employees will be impacted uponnegatively. It is imperative that all members within an organizationunderstand what is expected of them, towards the attainment of thelarger organizational goal(McShane, Steen &amp Deal, 2014).The sales reps are in this case arriving at their work place lateirrespective of the company’s policy and regulations. Some arefirst visiting their client before reporting at work and the trend isalarming their manager, who feels with persistence of the behaviour,he may be compelled to establish a time clock. Irrespective ofwhether they feel their clients are important, it is imperative thatall employees within a certain organizations share a common sense ofduty and goals. This is as well in regard to adhering to the correctcode of command as such coordination is necessary in an organizationwith multiple employees.

Themanager here needs to employ the motivation element of the MARSmodel. According to McShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014),the manager needs to foster a good relationship with his staff todiscover the logic behind their lateness. Role perception in thiscase would help to define the employees’ duties and what theorganization expects of them(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).The prevalent lateness in this case might be as a result of eitherthe employees misinterpreting their roles or the management failingto clearly define the roles and expectations of the employer to theemployees(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).If employees are clear on their role, they are most likely to performsince their employment was based on ability and skills.

Inthis case, maybe the sales reps feel that by visiting the clientfirst they are better serving the interests of the organization. Thisshould form the basis upon which the roles of the employees should beclearly defined to foster the most desirable behaviour and improvetheir productivity. In order for this company to adopt the MARS modelsuccessfully, there is need for the management to balance all fourelements to maximize the employees output(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).This can only be improved if everyone understands their role as perthe organizational policies, as well as prioritising the roles.

  1. How social identity, the process of categorization, homogenization and differentiation has contributed towards the employees’ hostility at the Royal Ontario Bank acquisition?

Accordingto McShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014)social identity theory is the intergroup behaviour based on how thegroup members perceive themselves based on the values they havebestowed on their individual group. The latter stirs seriousdiscrimination against members outside their group in favour of theirin-group. An individual exhibit multiple identities depending on therelating social circles across which he associate with(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).Thus social identity revolves around the perceptual aspects thatdistinguish group membership thus defining the “us” in a group.Thetwo groups- the financial analyst with degrees and the bank marketershave profound differences based on social identity. The two groupshave clear distinctive definition of their perceived professionalgroups upon which they have attributed special distinguishingfeatures(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).The group rather than their individual entity is what is playing outhere thus the open display of in-group favouritism. The groupscriticize each other on grounds of merit in certain areas as theycompare their collective abilities as groups rather than individuals.This is what triggers the financial analysts the feeling that theirdegree, a common feature amongst them makes them superior to a pointof degrading their marketing counterparts. On the flipside themarketers feel that they are better than the analysts since it istheir original company or bank that has salvaged a dying companypriory managed by the analyst.

Thesepetty differences are playing right against their organizationalinterests as they should be more united since they are now in thesame organization. According toMcShane,Steen &amp Deal, (2014)these individual employees seek to boost their self esteem by tryingto identify their in-group abilities in contrast to the rival groupon some valuable achievements. The two factions are so entangled intheir homogeneity, categorization and differentiation that theyforget they are now individuals merged together to achieve a commongoal. Thus their identities are wholly pegged on their groups ratherthan as individual entities.


  1. Why does Conestoga-Rovers and associates and other companies try to create a positive work environment?

Researchshows that most of our entire life is spent at a work place. Thisbeing a fact, means that when people have a positive workingenvironment they are more at ease at their place of work and tend toidentify and take pride in what they do (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014). Theattachment that employees have with their work place is directlydependent on the interpersonal relationship with those working with.When all these factors are positive, people take a lot of pride inachieving their personal targets as well as the organizational goalsas they enjoy their connection to their place of work (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014). Thewhole essence of such positive working environment is to createpositive mental attitude amongst the employee for maximumproductivity.

Thisis considering that a positive working environment is likely totrigger and foster teamwork, and motivation amongst the employees. Itstimulates the employees’ morale to report to work with vigor,aspects which might improve productivity and control fatigue andstress (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).It also creates a healthy working relationship between the managementand the staff to facilitate recruitment and development of toptalents. This is in regard to everyone’s dream to work in afriendly environment and grow professionally and socially. Researchshows that positive workplace environment brings job satisfactionenabling the employees to perform better than those in a differingenvironment.

  1. How does this company manage to provide events and perks that employees value?

Conestoga-rovershas for a long time established itself as a quality oriented serviceprovider in the fields of engineering, construction, environment andinformation technology. This means that, the company has establishedits solid clientele base, thus the flow of contracts. The givencontracts gives the employees a sense of purpose as they try todeliver them with the desirable quality since they are alreadymotivated by what such projects bring)(McShane, Steen &amp Deal, 2014).With the continued delivery and better performance on its givencontracts to the company’s clients satisfaction, the paymenttrickle in sustaining the employees perks as a way of appreciation.On the other side, the employees are motivated by the given targetsthey have to meet to get the perks that the company is offering. Thisact as the driving force behind the company’s success, as the twomajor players know what to do to sustain the exciting arrangement ina win-win situation (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).

  1. Is it possible that employees can have too much fun at work?

Today’sgeneration of employees has compelled the employers to come up withcreative and exciting workplace activities, with the objective ofretaining their employees(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).This trend is being adopted in most of the successful organizations’policy, a strategy that they are using to attract top talents andretain them for maximum productivity.

Therecan never be too much fun in a work place, as long as both themanagement and the employees have a working formula to meet theorganizational goals. The fun is just a token of appreciation to theemployees for good performance and meeting their set targets. Fun ata work place can work to the benefit of both the employees and theorganization since when company retain top talents and keeps themhappy, they tend to benefit the company by helping it attain itsorganizational goals (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).

  1. Are some types of fun more useful than others for the company’s success?

Funis relative depending with the individuals taste and preference(McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).This makes the wide variety more appealing to cater for the interestsof all employees. Thus no fun is more useful than the other for thecompany’s success. The most important aspect is that it is approvedby the employees and not imposed by the management. Additionally, theyoung employees should be trained on the purpose of the funactivities at a workplace and how they can turn these activities totheir advantage (McShane,Steen &amp Deal, 2014).


McShane,S. L., Steen, S., &amp Deal, T. (2014). Organizational Behaviour.