Module Code:

MANG6254

Assessment:

Individual Coursework

Weighting:

100%

Module Title:

Organisation Development SEMESTER 2 2021/22

Module Leader:

Dr Tahir Nisar

Submission Due Date: @ 16:00

Friday 20th May 2022

Word Count:

3000

Method of Submission:

Electronic via Blackboard Turnitin ONLY

(Please ensure that your name does not appear on any part of your work)

Any submitted after 16:00 on the deadline date will be subject to the standard University late penalties (see below), unless an extension has been granted, in writing by the Senior Tutor, in advance of the deadline.

This assessment relates to the following module learning outcomes:

3

Coursework Brief:

Read the case study, and then please answer to the questions below. Illustrate your paper with examples of theory and practice identified as a result of your independent research. Maximum word count for this essay is 3000 (+/- 10%) words (References are not included in the word count).

CASE STUDY

This case study provides you with background information on an imaginary context. However the issues faced by the company reflect challenges experienced by many organisations. In the examination you will be asked to take on the role of an external Organisation Development consultant and asked a series of questions that will enable you to demonstrate your knowledge of OD theory and practice in response to a request for advice by the HR Director and the Chief Executive.

Servis Ltd. and Npok & Co.

Servis Ltd was a long established (est. 1920) manufacturer of expensive boots for a wealthy clientele. They had a history of very carefully hand crafted products produced by people who have worked with them for many years. Their longest serving employee had been with them for 50 years. The Director of the company trained with them as a young man and was appointed to his role 20 years ago. The company slogan was ‘Tradition is Best – if our traditional methods produce good boots then we will not change’. Servis Factory was based in the UK just south of Manchester. They employed 150 staff and had a small loyal management team. Business had been steady with plenty of orders from their regular network of independent shoe shops. They recognised however that the market dynamics were changing with new competitors and the need to become much more efficient.

Before they could make any of the necessary changes the Director (who was also the majority shareholder) was approached by the CEO of Npok & Co. with an offer to buy the company which he accepted. Npok & Co. are a much younger company with a very trendy set of products focussed on young people and those interested in keeping-fit. They pride themselves on their very trendy designs and social media presence which helps them work closely with their customers directly rather than going through the usual supply channels of, what they see as, old fashioned shoe shops. They tend to sell most of their shoes on-line. Their factory is based north of Manchester and they also have about 150 staff although they have invested a great deal in modern production equipment.

Npok & Co. bought Servis because they wanted to benefit from the skills of the staff and also the high reputation of the name Servis has in the market. They plan to invest in new equipment for the Servis factory and in staff training. They want to merge the staff so that they can work flexibly across all the product lines and on both sites. To maintain some stability the old Director of Servis (John Right) has been retained in the new management structure working alongside the Head of the Npok & Co factory (Jane Left). The CEO (Alison Trendy) retains her role supported by an HR director and Head of Finance.

Whilst this approach seemed at the time of the takeover to make a lot of sense to Alison, things have not worked out at all well. The integration plan has not been fully implemented because of resentment between John Right and Jane Left who strongly believe that the integration plans do not fully take into account the very considerable differences in values and beliefs held by both themselves and their colleagues. There have been lengthy arguments both at board meetings and between managers and workers in the two factories who regularly disagree about what customers really need and how products should be developed and produced. Staff from both factories say they do not feel respected or properly understood by staff in the other factory.

Management team meetings have also become very difficult with constant arguments about what exactly the vision is for the business with John and Jane arguing for the approach they took before the merger. Alison is concerned that John is having a difficult time letting go of his old identity as boss of Servis and Jane, who was recently promoted from her old supervisor role with Npok, is having difficulty understanding what it means to be a senior manager. She does not seem to have the inter-personal and strategic business skills needed for the new role. Her poor performance is causing worry.

A recent review of production quality has identified another set of problems with old, inefficient work practices continuing at Servis’ factory meaning delays in completing orders. At the Npok factory customer complaints about shoe quality and customer services are growing rapidly. There is evidence that staff are being rude to customers via messaging on Facebook. Alison as CEO is communicating her concerns to all staff directly through a monthly company newsletter but this does not seem to be having any impact on performance at all. Indeed there are signs that key staff are planning on leaving and that staff morale is low. Alison still thinks that the merger was the right and the business future will be good if the problems she and the team are experiencing at the present time can be overcome. Change is needed and quickly. There are signs that profits are falling and the reputation of the two different parts of the company is not as good in the eyes of customers and shoe shops.

To help solve the problems Alison asks her HR Director to find an external consultant who can advise her on the action needed.

You are an external OD consultant and the Director of HR sends you the following email:

‘I am pleased to confirm your appointment as consultant to Npok & Co. Alison Trendy, our CEO has confirmed that she wishes you to advise on the following issues/questions (in no order of priority or importance):

· How can the management team become focussed and unified?

· What needs to be done to improve working relationships and staff morale across both factory sites?

· How can staff be engaged in improving customer service?

· How can changes to staff attitudes and behaviours be encouraged and supported?

· What needs to be done to make the whole business more efficient and services more cost effective? How do we get staff ideas and creativity to make sensible changes to business processes?

· Does the current organisational structure work for the best of the company or are there changes that need to be made?

· How can the performance of John and Jane be improved?

· What can be done immediately and what needs to happen in the longer term?

· How can each member of the top team be supported to improve their individual and collective performance?

We recognise that this is not a complete list and we sure that you will identify other issues and questions as you undertake your work. We understand that Organisation Development approaches can offer us some ways in which we can improve performance, commitment and involvement as well as supporting behaviour change amongst staff. It will be useful if you can ensure that you provide us with some of the relevant theory to support your recommendations.

Kind regards etc.’

QUESTIONS

1. (a) Using the case study as source material state what, in your opinion, are the top five organisational challenges facing the company?

(b) What specific OD interventions (including five factors framework) do you think will be most effective in addressing the challenges you have identified? Explain briefly the reasons for your choice.

2. (a) Assume that the CEO has specifically asked you to take a Dialogic approach to your OD work with the company. What types of activities and interventions do you think will be relevant if you take this approach?

(b) What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of a Dialogic approach in this context?

3. (a) What competencies of an OD practitioner will you need to use in the context of the case study?

(b) How would you recommend someone who wishes to become an OD practitioner develop and maintain OD competencies?

Nature of Assessment: This is a SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT. See ‘Weighting’ section above for the percentage that this assignment counts towards your final module mark.

Word Limit: +/-10% either side of the word count (see above) is deemed to be acceptable. Any text that exceeds an additional 10% will not attract any marks. The relevant word count includes items such as cover page, executive summary, title page, table of contents, tables, figures, in-text citations and section headings, if used. The relevant word count excludes your list of references and any appendices at the end of your coursework submission.

You should always include the word count (from Microsoft Word, not Turnitin), at the end of your coursework submission, before your list of references.

Title/Cover Page: You must include a title/ cover page that includes: your Student ID, Module Code, Assignment Title, Word Count. This assignment will be marked anonymously, please ensure that your name does not appear on any part of your assignment.

References: You should use the Harvard style to reference your assignment. The library provide guidance on how to reference in the Harvard style and this is available from: http://library.soton.ac.uk/sash/referencing

Submission Deadline: Please note that the submission deadline for Southampton Business School is 16.00 for ALL assessments.

Turnitin Submission: The assignment MUST be submitted electronically via Turnitin, which is accessed via the individual module on Blackboard. Further guidance on submitting assignments is available on the Blackboard support pages.

It is important that you allow enough time prior to the submission deadline to ensure your submission is processed on time as all late submissions are subject to a late penalty. We would recommend you allow 30 minutes to upload your work and check the submission has been processed and is correct. Please make sure you submit to the correct assignment link.

You will know that your submission has completed successfully when you see a message stating ‘Congratulations – your submission is complete…’. It is vital that you make a note of your Submission ID (Digital Receipt Number). This is a unique receipt number for your submission, and is proof of successful submission. You may be required to provide this number at a later date.  We recommend that you take a screenshot of this page, or note the number down on a piece of paper.  You should also receive an email receipt containing this number, and the number can be found after submitting by following this guide.  This method of checking your submission is particularly useful in the event that you don’t receive an email receipt.

The last submission prior to the deadline will be treated as the final submission and will be the copy that is assessed by the marker. 

It is your responsibility to ensure that the version received by the deadline is the final version, resubmissions after the deadline will not be accepted in any circumstances.

Important: If you have any problems during the submission process you should contact ServiceLine immediately by email at [email protected] or by phone on +44 (0)23 8059 5656.

Late Penalties: Further information on penalties for work submitted after the deadline can be found here.

Special Considerations: If you believe that illness or other circumstances have adversely affected your academic performance, information regarding the regulations governing Special Considerations can be accessed via the Calendar: http://www.calendar.soton.ac.uk/sectionIV/special-considerations.html

Extension Requests: : Extension requests along with supporting evidence should be submitted to the Student Office as soon as possible before the submission date. Information regarding the regulations governing extension requests can be accessed via the Calendar: http://www.calendar.soton.ac.uk/sectionIV/special-considerations.html

Academic Integrity Policy: Please note that you can access Academic Integrity Guidance for Students via the Quality Handbook: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/quality/assessment/academic_integrity.page?. Please note any suspected cases of Academic Integrity will be notified to the Academic Integrity Officer for investigation.

Feedback: Southampton Business School is committed to providing feedback within 4 weeks (University working days). Once the marks are released and you have received your feedback, you can meet with your Module Leader / Module Lecturer / Personal Academic Tutor to discuss the feedback within 4 weeks from the release of marks date. Any additional arrangements for feedback are listed in the Module Profile.

Student Support: Study skills and language support for Southampton Business School students is available at: http://www.sbsaob.soton.ac.uk/study-skills-and-language-support/.

External Examiner:

External Examiner Comments:

Final Approval by External Examiner Date:

Module Leader Response to External Examiner:

(Please note these comments are REQUIRED and will be sent to the External Examiner)

Percentage

0-34

35–49

50–59

60–69

70-79

80 – 100

Degree Class

Fail

Compensatable fail*

Pass

Merit

Distinction

Distinction

Cognitive/

Thinking:

Inadequate

Inconsistent

Level of critical

Good level of critical

Critical

Critical

Shows

an

evidence of critical

evidence of critical

understanding is

understanding

understanding is

understanding is

understanding

of

understanding as

understanding.

reasonable.

evident.

applied in a

applied in a very

theory

and

concepts,

required at this

Argument is just

Some confusion may

Competent in

comprehensive and

comprehensive and

adequate but may be

be evident but most

producing argument

concise manner.

concise manner.

and

an

ability

to

level. Lacks ability

poorly structured.

argument is relevant

that is well

Analysis is

Analysis is very

critically assess them.

to develop an

and adequate.

sustained, structured

appropriate and

comprehensive.

Weighting 20%

effective argument

and legitimate.

precise.

Very high degree of

as required for

High degree of

competence to

level 7.

competence to

produce innovative

produce innovative,

and original

original argument

argument

Subject Specific: Supports

No evidence.

Limited evidence.

Some relevant ideas/

Good relevant

Very good relevant

Excellent relevant

arguments with clear,

arguments evident.

examples are

examples are

examples are

effective examples/

Reasonable

evident, clearly

evident, very clearly

evident,

evidence.

articulation.

articulated.

articulated.

exceptionally clearly

Weighting 20%

articulated and

evidenced to the

topic.

Subject Specific: Scope of

No evidence.

Limited evidence

Reasonable coverage

Good coverage and

Very good coverage

Excellent coverage

relevant literature

with numerous

and referencing but

referencing with

and referencing with

and referencing.

including Harvard style

omissions.

incomplete or

minimal omissions.

minimal errors.

reference list.

numerous omissions.

Weighting 20%

Transferable Skills: Well-

No/inadequate

Poor structure with

Adequate structure

Good structure with

Very good structure

Excellent structure

structured with

structure.

limited introduction

with reasonable

competent

with concise,

with exceptionally

appropriate introduction

and conclusions.

introduction and

introduction and

comprehensive

clear introduction

and conclusions.

conclusions.

conclusions.

introduction and

and conclusions.

Weighting 20%

conclusions.

Percentage

0-34

35–49

50–59

60–69

70-79

80 – 100

Degree Class

Fail

Compensatable fail*

Pass

Merit

Distinction

Distinction

Transferable Skills:

Very poor and

Significant

Adequately

Well expressed.

Very well expressed.

Exceptionally

Correct and fluent English

often/mostly

deficiencies in

expressed but some

Clear and

Confident and very

competent and

language.

inarticulate. Mostly

expression.

inconsistencies

appropriate use of

good use of

fluent use of

Weighting 20%

incomprehensible.

Inconsistent and

apparent. Adequate

language.

language.

expression.

poor use of

use of language.

Confident and

language.

excellent use of

language.