Menu

ORGB2810AssignmentOneSummer2020

0 Comment

ORGB 2810 – Assignment One – Summer 2020 Required:Read the following scenarios and answer the five total questions that follow. Your submission should be NO LONGER THAN 2 PAGES.  Font size should be no smaller than 11pt.  Please use a reasonable font type (e.g. Calibri, Times New Roman).I would prefer if you submitted a Word document (not a PDF) The FILENAME SHOULD BE YOUR STUDENT NUMBER(S) and assignment numberExample:T00123456 – Assignment OneOn the first line of your submission, please type your STUDENT NUMBER (NO NAMES PLEASE)Example: T00123456 I don’t require a title page, so please don’t use one.You can incorporate bullet points into your answers if that helps.Number your answers or make it clear what question you are answering.A small percentage of your mark will be designated to your writing.  Your writing will not be scrutinized too hard (this isn’t an English course), but marks will be deducted if your writing is unclear and/or contains noteworthy issues in grammar and spelling.  (These errors would be forgiven on a test, but you have enough time to edit).Your assignment should be submitted to the designated drop box in Moodle by the due date.  If you are having problems submitting to the drop box, simply email me your assignment. Marks will be deducted if you violate these requirements.NOTE:  Each chapter will be worth roughly the same.  In other words, not all questions will be equally weighted.Chapter OneAt the end of the first chapter the textbook/slides discussed four contemporary management concerns.  Question1. What impact, if any, has COVID 19 (Corona Virus) had on those four concerns?  Chapter TwoA supervisor in a textile factory observes that one of her employees is violating a safety rule that could result in severe injury.  Questions1. What combination of reinforcement, punishment, and extinction could she use to correct this behaviour?  2. What does social cognitive theory suggest that she do to correct the behaviour?Chapter ThreeCase – Heavenly Sweets Ltd.Dave Hendricks looked at the latest sales figures with a great deal of delight. The vice-president of marketing at Heavenly Sweets Ltd., a large American candy manufacturer, was pleased to see that the marketing campaign to improve sagging sales of Heavenly’s organic chocolate brand was working. Sales volume and market share of the product had increased significantly over the past two quarters compared with the previous year.The improved sales of Heavenly’s organic chocolate could be credited to Juanita Diaz, who was assigned to the organic chocolate brand last year. Diaz had joined Heavenly less than two years ago as an assistant brand manager after leaving a similar job at a dairy products firm. She was one of the few nonwhite women in marketing management at Heavenly Sweets and had a promising career with the company. Hendricks was pleased with Diaz’s work and tried to let her know this in the annual performance reviews. He now had an excellent opportunity to reward her by offering her the recently vacated position of marketing research coordinator. Although technically only a lateral transfer with a modest salary increase, the marketing research coordinator job would give Diaz broader experience in some high-profile work, which would enhance her career with Heavenly Sweets. Few people were aware that Hendricks’ own career had been boosted by working as marketing research coordinator at Heavenly Sweets several years earlier.Juanita Diaz had also seen the latest sales figures on Heavenly’s organic chocolate and was expecting Hendricks’ call to set up a meeting that morning. Hendricks began the conversation by briefly mentioning the positive sales figures, and then explained that he wanted Diaz to take the marketing research coordinator job. Diaz was shocked by the news. She enjoyed brand management and particularly the challenge involved with controlling a product that directly affected the company’s profitability. Marketing research coordinator was a technical support position—a “backroom” job—far removed from the company’s bottom-line activities. Marketing research was not the route to top management in most organizations, thought Diaz. She had been sidelined.After a long silence, Diaz managed a weak “Thank you, Mr. Hendricks.” She was too bewildered to protest. She wanted to collect her thoughts and reflect on what she had done wrong. Also, she did not know her boss well enough to be openly critical.Hendricks recognized Diaz’s surprise, which he naturally assumed was her positive response to hearing of this wonderful career opportunity. He, too, had been delighted several years earlier about his temporary transfer to marketing research to round out his marketing experience. “This move will be good for both you and Heavenly Sweets,” said Hendricks, as he escorted Diaz from his office.Diaz was preoccupied with several tasks that afternoon, but was able to consider the day’s events that evening. She was one of the top women and few minorities in brand management at Heavenly Sweets and feared that she was being sidelined because the company didn’t want women or nonwhite people in top management. Her previous employer had made it quite clear that women “couldn’t take the heat” in marketing management and tended to place them in technical support positions after a brief term in lower brand management jobs. Obviously, Dave Hendricks and Heavenly Sweets were following the same game plan. Hendricks’ comments that the coordinator job would be good for her was just a nice way of saying that Diaz couldn’t go any further in brand management at Heavenly Sweets.Diaz now faced the difficult decision of whether to confront Hendricks and try to change Heavenly Sweets’ sexist and possibly racist practices or to leave the company.Questions Apply your knowledge of stereotyping and self-concept to explain what went wrong here. What other perceptual error(s) is(are) apparent in this case study?