GSBS6001

Managing Under Uncertainty

Trimester 3, 2012

Assignment 3Personal Case Study Reflection

(Sample 1)

NameStudent number

Adapted from original student workby Learning Development © 2012

1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to critically reflect on a decision made in the workplace that

resulted in a less than satisfactory outcome.

I am employed by a local electrical power distribution company. I am the nominated

chairman of a company-wide workgroup whose purpose is to design and implement an

Inspection and Test Quality Process (ITQP) for electrical assets which are being

constructed onto our electrical network. The documentation consists of a quality

framework and detailed commissioning check lists and test reports for each item of

electrical equipment.

Our workgroup progresses the relevant documents to a point where they are issued as

draft documents to field technicians who complete the work and sign off the checks and

tests on the reports as they are completed. It is quite an intensive effort to manually

produce the required amount of documentation for a project, so the workgroup raised a

proposal to expedite this process and at the same time produce efficiency gains to the

process.

The workgroup decided to engage an external consultant to complete the automation of

the ITQP framework. This report analyses the effects of that decision on the process, and

reflects on possibly better ways that decisions can be made when the relevant information

is known.

THE DECISION

2

The decision to engage the consultant was deemed necessary by all group members as

being the most logical, timely and effective way to achieve the automation of our

developed ITQP process. Through the many previous months of arduous compilation of

data and template formatting we achieved through regular meetings, the group recognised

that a specialist was required to develop a more efficient process of rolling out the

documentation required for project work. This decision was very much a Non-

programmed decision (McKee, 2010), as it was not routine, it involved unique

information, and it was almost certainly going to be challenged by senior management,

who would ask why people within the company were unable to achieve the same

outcome.

Our workgroup knew that this process needed to happen in the timeliest and most cost

effective way, and approval was granted after we demonstrated the productivity and

conformity to be gained from implementing the ITQP through an automated process. A

member of our work group had prior experience with a reliable consultant who had

worked in this field, and his Intuition (McKee, 2010) told him that this consultant would

be a perfect fit for our project. In our colleague’s mind, the consultant had a Halo effect

(McKee, 2010) due to his ability to undertake the most complex task with expertise and

professionalism. With this Confirming evidence (McKee, 2010) detailed by our colleague

to our work group, we deemed it logical to engage the consultant as soon as practicable.

SETTING THE GOALS

By applying the critical thinking skill of Inference (McKee, 2010), our working group

developed a list of deliverables to be adhered to by the consultant throughout their

3

employment with our company. The list served as the scope of what we were attempting

to achieve. Our intention was to continue with our regular meetings and engage the

consultant in discussion to maximize the flow of ideas and information between us, with

the aim of delivering the best possible outcome for the automated ITQP framework. Our

work group orientated the consultant to the ITQP framework and its use, and briefed the

consultant on the deliverables expected to be achieved by introducing the automated

process. A worrying point identified by the group was the short amount of time – five

months – allocated to achieve this outcome; however, we all reassured each other that this

was achievable. After one month, the consultant displayed great Conformity (Gerrig,

Zimbardo, Campbell, Cumming & Wilkes, 2012) with any issue or problem identified by

our group or the process, and dealt with the issue with professionalism and competence.

SCOPE CHANGE

Midway through the engagement, the consultant discovered a problem in the development

phase of a process and highlighted this issue because it was a potential anchor to the

overall automation of the project. As our workgroup was meeting weekly, we reviewed

the issue with an awareness that one of our main goals was that we were to run the

system, rather than have the system run us. The identified problem, however, caused us

frustration and, with time passing quickly, we settled on Satisficing (Robbins, Bergman,

Stagg & Coulter, 2012) an outcome that would achieve the desired result.

At this point, one of the workgroup colleagues suggested that further productivity gains

could be achieved from this change by progressing the ITQP framework down a further

level, thereby eliminating the need for manually completing a further 30% of the

4

documentation. With this efficiency in mind, herding instinct (Hubbard & Beamish, 2010)

steered us towards our colleague’s view. However, the project and the consultant’s scope

had now grown substantially further with the same amount of time available to complete

the automation process. Even with this substantial change we all still agreed that with the

major anchor being identified and resolved, this scope change and our deliverables were

still very much achievable. The consultant continued conscientiously to attempt to meet

these goals.

THE CRISIS POINT

The section management had initially given our workgroup five months to complete this

automation process because it was required for a peak in work demand. Company policy

frowned on lengthy periods of consultant engagement, regardless of what the project

entailed. Initially our workgroup estimated five months based on our deliverables and our

experience of what we considered as the scope of work. This project had been progressing

satisfactorily; however, the moving of the automation to an extra level, and the continual

systematic problems over several weeks was eroding both our time and our effective

control of the deliverables. Our escalation of commitment (Robbins, Bergman, Stagg &

Coulter, 2012) still did not seem to be making the progress required within the specified

timeframe.

With this in mind, and minimal time to complete the process, a Bounded rationality

(McKee, 2010) approach drove us to secure a further three months. In the event that we

would not be able to achieve the extension of time, the group conceded that the

automation would not be completed using the current progression model. However, an

5

extension of time was approved by management after the workgroup argued that the

revised scope of the ITQP framework would add real gains to our company’s ability to

produce a common automated process across all five regions.

THE OUTCOME

The allowance of extra time to complete the automated process reduced the pressure on

the group, but at the same time refocused our thoughts and reorganised us as a team rather

than a group. According to Belbin’s conception of teamwork (1993, as cited in Teale,

Dispenza, Flynn & Currie, 2003), whereby we displayed the actions of a team through

predetermined, complementary roles. This change enhanced our progress in achieving the

automation as the consultant only dealt with particular team members whose role was to

support the consultant, while other team members took on the role of trialling the process

to validate its operation. This simple yet effective principle allowed us to make the most

efficient use of our time. The process of automating the ITQP used all available time, and

while it was able to be used, the ITQP still needed reviewing.

Ironically, within the last month of the consultant’s engagement, an internal company

enquiry about an unrelated matter revealed that an existing company resource was

available that would complement our process. If our initial research had unveiled this

resource, the path to our outcome would have been more efficient and practical. The

internal company resource has now been assigned to our team to maintain the system and

conduct training in the ITQP automated process.

REFLECTION ON OUR DECISION

6

The decision by our workgroup to engage the consultant to complete the automation of the

ITQP process was by no means a failure. However, as a group, we should have researched

our options more thoroughly prior to deciding on this course of action. By working

through the Eight-step decision making model (McKee, 2010) we would have challenged

each other’s thoughts and opinions. By listing alternatives we may well have identified

that an existing company resource was available to complete the automation.

As the chairman of the working group, I feel responsible for allowing our workgroup to

fall into the typical thinking traps of decision making, including the Anchoring (McKee,

2010) of initial information and adhering to that path. The group also developed Janis’

(1982, as cited in Teale et al., 2003) concept of Groupthink, whereby we all saw our

actions as being correct and in the best interests of the company, even when we did not

accurately identify the risks, their impact and how we were going to solve them. Had my

knowledge on decision making theories been available at the time of making these critical

decisions, I would have definitely steered the group away from the thinking traps

associated with decision making. At the time, this may have seemed inefficient, however

it would have resulted in more thought and strategies being tabulated prior to the project,

thereby giving it more direction.

As the process of automating the ITQP was a significant change for the company, we

should have identified it as a trigger event (Wheelen & Hunger 2011, p.24), and listed in

detail the strategies and outcomes required for its successful implementation. Goodwin

Watson’s theory of process gain (1931, as cited in Johnson & Johnson, 2009) shows that

the interaction of ideas and insights within a group leads to strategies that no one person

singularly can accomplish. In our group, this proved to be the case when we reached the

7

crisis point of being unable to complete the automation. With the time we had left, we

shifted from being a group to being a team in achieving our goals.

On final reflection, I believe that had we worked through the eight step decision making

model and encompassed the model for effective decision making (Hubbard & Beamish,

2010) which assists with further strategies, we would have found the necessary evidence

to make a sound business decision on whether we should have engaged an external or an

internal resource to complete the automation process.

CONCLUSION

This report has utilised decision making theories to analyse the engagement of an external

consultant to automate a process, with the goal of improving efficiency in producing the

ITQP documentation. The report dissected how the consultant was engaged by the group,

how the goals were established to achieve our objective, how there were issues along the

way and what decisions were implemented to overcome these issues. On reflection, a

number of critical thinking errors occurred early in the process. They could have been

easily resolved if the knowledge of decision making theories had been tabulated or

explored prior to undertaking the decision to automate the ITQP process. This would have

produced a much clearer outcome about whether to proceed by utilising an internal

company resource or engaging the external consultant.

(2055 words)

8

REFERENCES

Gerrig, R., Zimbardo, P., Campbell, A., Cumming S. & Wilkes, F. (2012). Social psychology. In Psychology and life, 2nd Edn., (pp. 611- 658). Sydney: Pearson

Australia.

Hubbard, G. & Beamish, P. (2010). Strategic decision making. In Strategic management, 4th

Edn., (pp. 197 – 217) Sydney: Pearson Australia.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2009). Decision Making. In Joining together: group theory and

group skills, 10th Edn., (pp. 264 – 317). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson EducationInc., Prentice Hall.

McKee, A. (2010). The Human Side of Planning: Decision making and critical thinking. In

Management: A focus on leaders, 1st Edn., (pp. 176 – 209). Sydney: Pearson Australia.

Robbins, S., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. & Coulter (2012). Decision making: The essence of amanager’s job. In Management, 6th Edn., (pp. 259 – 289). Sydney: Pearson Australia.

Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J. & Currie, D. (2003). Group Processes. In Managementdecision-making: towards an Integrative Approach, 1st Edn. , (pp. 273-300). United Kingdom: Pearson Education.

Wheeler & Hunger (2011). Basic Concepts of Strategic Management. In Concepts of Strategic Management and Business policy, 12 Edn., (pp. 2-41). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Education Inc., Prentice Hall.

Click on Return when you have finished

9

Assessment cover sheet

Assignment 3

Personal case study reflection

(Sample 2)

Adapted from original student work

by Learning Development © 2012

10

1.INTRODUCTION

This report analyses a situation I faced as the production manager of local preserves company.

The report indicates how failing to formalise and structure a decision-making process when

under coercive and time-induced pressures can intensify personality traits and lead to

decisional paralysis and anxiety. This report also reflects on how I may have contained the

issues at the time if I had utilised academic concepts, models and frameworks to avoid the

negative outcomes.

2. THE DECISION

Due to company growth, I was required to make a decision about expanding our range of

products, and inform the owner of the decision within two weeks. It could be described as a

non-routine and non-programmed complex decision (Malakooti, 2012). To be successful, this

type of managerial decision requires a considered, rational approach derived from the

principle of inclusive utility (Betsch & Held, 2012). Therefore, to gather information relevant

to the decision, I consulted with two experienced sales team managers, Mark and Alan. The

owner directed the retail manager, Con, to moderate the decision in formal meetings.

Through Con, the owner indicated that if a good decision was not made there may be a

significant restructuring of roles within the organisation. In the following two weeks I was

exceptionally stressed, and could neither forward reasonable information, nor achieve an

outcome.

2.1 Stressors

The owner’s tacit threats to job and role security, communicated through Con, induced an

excessive stress reaction in me. My cognitive processes took a central route to being

persuaded of negative outcomes in what is referred to as the elaboration likelihood model

11

(Gerrig, Zimbardo, Campbell, Cumming & Wilkes, 2012). Consequently, I expanded my

expectation and evaluation of negative ramifications.

This stressor obscured my rational approach to the decision-making process. It also elevated

my personality traits aligned to ultra-conservative and self-preservation motivators (Denison,

Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995), whereby I valued the external perception of performance within

the decision more than the quality of the decision-making outcomes. A cognitive response to

second-hand accounts of consequences, such as Con’s communication of the owner’s threats,

can result in a poor decision through stationary dysfunction (Jago, 1982). My efforts to quell

my anxiety were unsuccessful, as I had no feedback to confirm the veracity or extent of this

indirect claim within the organisation.

3. DECISION-MAKING ISSUES

3.1 Satisficing and bounded rationality

I felt pressured by the owner’s allocation of a strict two-week timeframe for a decision. As a

result the decision was subject to bounded rationality (Teale, Dispenza, Flynn & Currie,

2003a) in which available information is limited. Fiscal data was not sourced; instead, we

intuitively evaluated various probabilities of financial outcomes. This situation concurs with

the idea that groups and individuals under time constraints may form unwise or premature

decisions based on imprecise information, often resulting in decision satisficing (Tolbert &

Hall, 2008) rather than seeking the best option.

An effective alternative to this could have been a decision tree model, which graphically

represents decisions (Liua & Leung, 2002). Decision trees formalise sequences of design

with subsequent decision nodes that are more focussed and encourage broader search cycles

(Langley, Minztberg, Pitcher, Posada & Saint-Macary, 1995). Use of a decision tree could

12

have helped me to focus and expand on each alternative. The result may have lessened the

impact of satisficing and may have produced sound data unadulterated by intuitive estimates.

3.2 Heuristic anchoring bias

Solutions to guide reasoning in the decision-making process were often frustrated by my

disregard of more informed input as solutions progressed. This kind of information

discounting can occur because of the heuristic influence of an anchoring bias (Robbins,

Bergman, Stagg & Coulter, 2012), exemplified by my fixation on initial concepts that

dominated the agenda. We could have overcome issues of individual heuristic biases and

controlled the flow of issues in group discussions by adopting the pragmatic strategy of

having a formal agenda process (Langley et al., 1995)

4. GROUP ISSUES

4.1 Unstructured approach and goal drift

The lack of formal structure in our group resulted in decisional goal shifting (Bonaccio &

Dalal, 2006). This happens in groups when ambiguous or non-existent procedures obscure

the processes to goal accomplishment. Goal shifting is a systematic administrative failure

leading to circular arguments and group disequilibrium (Patriotta & Spedale, 2011).

Accordingly, my decision-making process often entailed long myopic discussion loops with

Mark and Alan over previously considered issues, which both slowed the process and shifted

goals.

Alternatively, had I suggested to the group a structured approach as illustrated in the Eight

stage decision making model (Robbins, et al., 2012), more effective protocols would have

been developed to identify and curtail my goal shifts and circular analysis. Clear group

leadership such as this provides structural guidance, and can clarify and enhance group

13

expectations and internal roles (Jago, 1982). This would have resulted in improved

identification of issues and analysis of more alternatives.

4.2 Group frustration

Frustration can be caused by an inability to progress towards goals (Gerrig, et al. 2012).

Production can be blocked by interference and adjournments, which accelerate group

dysfunction (Tasa & Whyte, 2005) and deprive the group of holistic participation (Johnson &

Johnson, 2009). This was evident in our case when, despite having a designated conference

room, Con insisted that the group discuss the decision in a nearby restaurant. This

environment led to interruptions, and, consequently, group frustration. Had the conference

room been used for the decision making process participant frustration would have been

lessened.

4.3 Role and group conflict

Group structure is crucial to the development of a collective decision. It entails having a role-

based balance between task and process orientations of the respective members (Sutcliffe &

McNamara, 2001). The structure of our group was fundamentally imbalanced. Our group

consisted of individuals who could be described as decision task experts, with differing goal

perspectives and priorities indicating potential for latent conflict (Teale, Dispenza, Currie &

Flynn, 2003b).

Mark and Alan’s identical roles represented a distinct subunit (Jones, 2010). Typically, a

subunit is inspired by the context of the customers it serves, and myopically influences the

decision making process (Sutcliffe & McNamara, 2001). This leads to a reduced scope of

group discussions regarding alternative assessments.

14

As the moderator, Con represented a disruptive gatekeeper role in cynically evaluating

alternatives and regulating discussion (Teale et al., 2003). As Con was new to the company,

the group did not accept his autocratic stance, and perceived him as a constructor of vertical

power within an existing horizontal employee grouping (Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006). The

initially minor discord over Con’s role became open and emotive verbal conflict, reflecting an

escalation from perceived conflict to felt conflict (Jones, 2010). Alan and I both reacted by

criticising Con, which did not resolve the issue.

A proactive measure I could have taken to prevent this conflict is the Delphi technique

(Sniezek, 1992), which can address a lack of inclusive discussion among task-orientated

individuals by standardising decision responses.

5. PERSONALITY ISSUES

Frustration, pressure and threats to job security influenced me to delay the decision making

process and avoid the negative consequences. This avoidance can lead to anxiety (Wolfradt

& Dalbert, 2003). Anxiety may also be provoked by the decision-maker’s perception of

threats that exceed his or her capacity to cope, and this perception can lead to rigidity in

responding (Tasa & Whyte, 2005). These concepts may explain my own response, and the

core of my anchoring bias.

My need for a good outcome motivated my amplification of internal conflicts. Mark and

Alan’s procrastinating behaviour constituted a reduced knowledge-sharing environment,

which can inhibit planning and prompt an intuitive approach to tasks (Matzler et al., 2008). It

also engenders an emotional response of frustration in conscientious individuals. This was

relevant to me because, according to the CANOE model (Robbins & Judge, 2011), I have a

propensity for higher conscientiousness personality traits.

15

5.1 Type A personality trait

My frustration provoked in me overt competitive behaviour which is indicative of a Type A

personality (Robbins & Judge, 2010). I incessantly attempted to outperform Craig by multi-

tasking and working excessive hours of overtime which resulted in my having less time to

reflect on decision appraisals. It is a Type A action-emotion response to aggressively achieve

more and more in less and less time (Ahmad, 2010). Workplace personality discords can arise

through such symbiotic relationships between competitive Type A personalities and relaxed

Type B individuals (Trice & Beyer, 1991) like Con.

My action response can be further defined as polyphasic Type A (Chew & Chee-Leong,

1991) in that I have a predisposition to undertake two or more tasks simultaneously at

inappropriate times. This can lead to an inability to complete tasks, and reflects the Type A

trait of failing to plan. Impulsive engagement in operations, rather than planning for the

desired result, creates a cycle of anxiety. Having a formal plan or agenda would have

alleviated my anxiety by focussing my efforts on the decision-making process.

6. CONCLUSION

In the two week timeframe given, our efforts yielded no clear decision outcome, other than

intuitive and emotionally based contributions. My constant anxiety over the outcome and my

reactive behaviour of working excessive and unpaid overtime left me emotionally and

physically drained.

It is clear to me now that our frustration and subsequent dysfunction in the decision-making

process was due to the lack of a range of formal planning and conflict resolution techniques.

Retrospectively, if I had both recognised my own personality traits and employed some

decision-making models at either the formative stage, or in the floundering process, the stress

16

from time pressure and tacit coercions would have been reduced, progress toward a decision

made, and a rational outcome produced.

(2,291 words)

References

Ahmad, M.(2010). Personality traits among entrepreneurial and professional CEO’s in SMEs. International journal of business and management. 5(9), 203-213. Retrieved 09/06/2012 from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/7328/5702.

Betsch, T. & Held, C. (2012). Rational decision making: balancing RUN and JUMP modes of analysis. Journal of mind and society, 11, 69-80. doi: 10.1007/s11299-011-0097-2

Bonaccio, S. & Dalal, R. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organisational sciences. Organisational behaviour and human decision processes 101, 127–151. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001

Chew, I. & Chee-Leong, C. (1991). Type A personality and stress among the Singapore Chinese, Malays and Indians. Journal of personal induced differences, 12(7), 753-758. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90231-Y

Gerrig, R., Zimbardo, P., Campbell, A., Cumming, S. & Wilkes, F. (2012). Social psychology. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 449-496). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Jago, A. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management science. 28(3), pp. 315-336. Retrieved 11/06/2011 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630884

Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2009). Decision making. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 498-551). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Jones, G. (2010). Managing Conflict, power and politics. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp.573-418). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Kaushal, R. & Kwantes, C. (2006). The role of culture and personality in choice of conflict management strategy. International journal of intercultural relations.30, 579–603. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.01.001

Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E. & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science. 6(3), 260-279. Retrieved 10/06/2012 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635251

17

Liua, A. & Leung, M. (2002). Developing a soft value management model. International journal of project management, 20, 341–349. doi S0263-7863(01)00023-0

Malakooti, B. (2012). Decision making process: typology, intelligence, and optimization. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 23,733–746. doi 10.1007/s10845-010-0424-1

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Muller, J., Herting , S. & Mooradian, T. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of economic psychology 29, 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.06.004

Parkinson, B. & Simons, G. (2009). Affecting others: Social appraisal and emotion contagion in everyday decision making. Personality and social psychology bulletin. 35, 1071-1084. doi: 10.1177/0146167209336611

Patriotta, G., & Spedale, S. (2011). Micro-interaction dynamics in group decision making: Face games, interaction order and boundary work. Scandinavian journal of management, 27, 362—374. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2011.08.001

Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2011).Perception and individual Decision making. In Organisational behaviour, 14th Edn, 167-201. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 366-401). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Robbins, S., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. & Coulter, (2012). Decision making: the essence of a manager’s job. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 75-105). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Sniezek, J. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: an examination of confidence in group decision making. Organisational behaviour and human processes, 52, 124-155.

Sutcliffe, K., & McNamara, G. (2001). Controlling decision-making practice in organizations. Organization science,12 (4), 484-501. Retrieved 09/06/2012 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3085984

Tasa, K., Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in group decision making: A non-linear model. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 96, 119–129. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.01.002

Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J. & Currie, D. (2003a). Management decision-making in context. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 7-22). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Teale, M., Dispenza, V., Flynn, J. & Currie, D. (2003b). Group processes. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 405-466). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

18

Tolbert, P. & Hall, R. (2008). Decision-making. In M. Fitzgerald & S. Ayson, (Eds.), Managing under uncertainty: a qualitative approach to decision making (pp. 28-38). Frenchs Forest, Sydney, Australia: Pearson.

Wolfradt, U. & Dalbert, C. (2003). Personality, values and belief in a just world. Personality and individual differences, 35, 1911–1918. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00040-0

Click on Return when you have finished

19

SAMPLE CASE STUDY REPORTS CHECKLIST

1. Read the two example reports and note down why you think they scored highly.

2. Reflect on what you have learned in the MUU academic literacy tutorials (below) and check how these things relate to the two sample reports.

(NB Use this as a checklist for your own work too. Relevant pages from the NBS Student Manual are provided in brackets.)

OVERALL

Reading and note-taking skills (16-27)

Did the writer read widely?

Do you think the writer took notes well?

Do you think the writer/s read critically, i.e. thought about whether decision-making theories were:i) Correctii) Applicable to the writer’s own decision experience?

20

TO HELP YOU JUDGE THE FIRST 3 CRITERIA:

Summary writing (27-28)

Do the reports employ summary writing, where appropriate, to:i) Relate relevant background information and the case study ‘story’ii) Relate the content of relevant theories

Are the summarising sentences concise?Do they include the most necessary information for the reader to understand the argument?

Critical analysis and critical writing (23-25)

Check that the writing:

Separates (or groups) causes, effects and their interrelationships (63-64)

Includes all important issues Explains the key issues Relates issues to broad theory (models, frameworks). Relates specific aspects of these issues to more specific theories. Explains/summarises theories that are being applied to the case Emphasises ideas, rather than the source (author) of the ideas Synthesises ideas from multiple sources The voice of the writer is clear – we “hear” what the writer thinks

Reflective writing (55-58)

Check that the writing:

Explains what could/would/should have been done if there was better knowledge of decision-making theory at the time.

Justifies or explains the reflection with further reference to theory

Find examples in the report/s that demonstrate effective writing in each of these areas.

21

SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER ABOUT EFFECTIVE WRITING:

Style & expression (41-47)Is the work written:

in academic style (formal sentence structure & word choice) in well-structured paragraphs that each focus on one idea (42) in clear sentences (43-44) concisely (no wordiness, no repetition) cohesively (keywords, transitions, signposts & connecting words or

phrases make it ‘flow’) logically (causes & effects are in order, no internal contradictions,

chronology is correct) with no spelling, punctuation or grammar errors (48)

TO HELP YOU JUDGE THE 4TH CRITERION:

Report Structure & Formatting (49-53)(NB: Table of Contents & Executive Summary not required for assessment 3)

Check that the sample reports have:

Logical sections and subheadings Sections do contain what their subheadings would suggest Are within the 10% + /- range of the word limit Adequate margins Line-spacing of at least 1.5 12 point font (preferably Times New Roman)

Referencing (26-38)

Check the referencing of sources:

Does it conform to APA style, using correct punctuation and format? Do all in-text references have a corresponding entry in the reference

list? Are all reference list entries cited in the text?

22

Assess the Assignment 3 example reports using the rubric criteria:

Notes on Sample 1 Notes on Sample 2

Selection of relevant academic theories, models & frameworks from course literature to identify key issues of personal decision making situation

Application of relevant academic theories, models and frameworks to evaluate why the issues of the personal decision making situation arose

23

Notes on Sample 1 Notes on Sample 2

Personal reflection, informed by theory, on how the issue could have been addressed differently

Clear language, overall structure and correct referencing

Click on Return when you are finished

Click here to return to the start of the document.

24