MGMT 301: Organizational Behavior – Case Analysis Assignment

American University of Sharjah | College of Business Administration

Course Information

Course Code: MGMT 301 | Course Title: Organizational Behavior
Credit Hours: 3 | Level: Undergraduate (Year 2–3)
Assignment Type: Individual Written Case Analysis
Assignment Number: Assignment 2 of 3
Weighting: 20% of Final Grade
Word Count: 1,500–2,000 words (excluding references and appendices)
Submission: Via Blackboard LMS — PDF or Word (.docx) format only
Due Date: Week 9 — Sunday, 11:59 PM (GST)
Citation Style: APA 7th Edition

Assignment Overview and Context

One of the persistent challenges in managing teams — particularly in fast-growing organizations across the GCC — is not just assembling talented individuals, but understanding how group dynamics, personality differences, and perceived fairness shape performance outcomes. This assignment asks you to move beyond theory memorization and apply core OB frameworks to a realistic workplace scenario.

You will analyze a team-based case drawn from a regional organizational context, identifying behavioral patterns, diagnosing underlying causes, and recommending evidence-based management interventions. The case study you are required to analyze is provided at the end of this brief (see Appendix A).

Learning Outcomes Assessed

1. Apply the Big Five Personality Model to explain individual differences in workplace behavior.
2. Use Tuckman’s Five Stages of Group Development to evaluate team performance at a given point in time.
3. Identify and analyze social loafing using Equity Theory as a theoretical lens.
4. Propose a structured management intervention supported by academic literature.
5. Demonstrate academic writing skills consistent with APA 7th Edition conventions.

The Task

Read the case study in Appendix A carefully — more than once, ideally. Then write a structured case analysis that addresses all four parts below. Each part carries its own weighting within the assignment grade.

Part 1 — Personality and Team Composition (25%)

Using the Big Five Personality Traits (OCEAN model), analyze at least three of the team members described in the case. For each individual, identify their dominant trait(s), provide evidence from the case to justify your assessment, and explain how that trait appears to be influencing their behavior within the team. Avoid simply labeling characters — the analysis should connect trait characteristics to observable outcomes in the scenario.

Part 2 — Group Development Stage (25%)

Drawing on Tuckman’s Five-Stage Model (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning), identify which stage the team is currently in. Justify your answer with at least two specific pieces of evidence from the case. Consider whether the team may be showing signs of regression to an earlier stage, and if so, explain why that matters for the manager’s response.

Part 3 — Social Loafing and Equity Theory (30%)

This is the analytical core of the assignment. Identify the team member who appears to be engaging in social loafing. Define social loafing clearly (do not assume the marker shares your working definition), and then apply Equity Theory to explain the likely motivational dynamics at play — both for the loafer and for those teammates who perceive the situation as unfair. What inputs and outcomes are being compared? Where does the perceived imbalance lie? Be specific rather than general here.

Part 4 — Management Intervention Proposal (20%)

Drawing on at least two peer-reviewed sources (published 2018–2026), propose a practical, realistic intervention the team manager could implement to address the social loafing behavior and restore team cohesion. Your proposal should be specific enough to be actionable — vague suggestions like “improve communication” will not earn full marks. Consider the regional workplace context where relevant (e.g., hierarchical structures, collectivist cultural norms common in GCC organizations).

Formatting and Referencing (Integrated — 10% deducted for non-compliance)

• Word count: 1,500–2,000 words (body text only). Submissions outside this range by more than 10% will be penalized.
• Use section headings that correspond to the four parts above.
• APA 7th Edition in-text citations and a full reference list are required.
• Minimum four academic sources; at least two must be peer-reviewed journal articles.
• Submitted work must be your own. Turnitin similarity threshold: below 20%.

Appendix A — Case Study: The Falcon Analytics Team

The following case is fictional and created for assessment purposes only.

Falcon Digital, a mid-sized e-commerce startup based in Dubai, recently formed a cross-functional project team to develop a customer retention strategy ahead of the Ramadan sales season. The team of five was assembled quickly, with members pulled from marketing, operations, data analytics, and customer experience. They were given eight weeks to produce a data-backed proposal for senior leadership.

Nadia, the team lead, is highly organized and detail-oriented. She sets clear meeting agendas and follows up on action items consistently. However, colleagues note that she becomes visibly anxious when deliverables are delayed and tends to micromanage when under pressure. Khalid, the data analyst, is widely regarded as the team’s most technically capable member. He works independently, rarely asks for help, and has occasionally missed group calls — always with a reasonable explanation. He delivers strong individual outputs but seems disconnected from the team’s broader process. Sara, from customer experience, is enthusiastic and socially expressive. She volunteers for tasks quickly, often before fully reading the brief, and her energy keeps morale relatively high during difficult stretches. Ahmed, from operations, is quiet in meetings, methodical, and rarely volunteers opinions unless directly asked — though when he does contribute, his input tends to be well-considered. Lina, the fifth member, joined the team two weeks late after a project reassignment. Since joining, she has attended all meetings but has not submitted a single deliverable. When asked, she cites being “still catching up” and says she plans to contribute more once she fully understands the project scope. The deadline is now three weeks away.

During last week’s meeting, Sara openly expressed frustration, saying it “wasn’t fair” that some members were carrying the weight while others were present but not contributing. Khalid stayed silent. Ahmed nodded. Nadia attempted to redirect the conversation back to the timeline. Lina apologized and promised to deliver a draft by Friday — which has now passed without submission.

Marking Rubric

Submission Checklist

• Word count stated on cover page or first page
• Student ID and section number included (no full name — double-blind marking)
• Four parts clearly headed and addressed
• Minimum four references; at least two peer-reviewed
• APA 7th Edition reference list on a separate final page
• Submitted to Blackboard by the due date (late penalties apply: 5% per day, up to 5 days)

A Note from the Module Instructor

Many students approach case analyses by summarizing the case and then listing theories beside it. That approach rarely passes at this level. What we are looking for is genuine analytical engagement — where you use theory as a lens rather than a label. Equity Theory, for example, is not just a name to drop next to “unfair treatment.” It has specific components — inputs, outcomes, referent comparisons, and behavioral responses to perceived imbalance — and your analysis should work through those components with reference to the case. The same applies to Tuckman and the Big Five. If your draft reads like a summary followed by a list of theoretical terms, revise before submitting.

Sample Answer Guide

In Tuckman’s model, the “storming” stage is marked by interpersonal conflict and competition for roles, and the Falcon Analytics team shows several hallmarks of this phase, particularly Sara’s public frustration and Nadia’s avoidance of direct confrontation. Lina’s behavior aligns closely with the social loafing phenomenon described by Karau and Williams (1993), where individuals reduce effort in group settings when personal accountability is diffused. Applying Equity Theory, Sara and Ahmed may perceive their input-to-outcome ratio as significantly less favorable than Lina’s, which helps explain why Sara’s frustration has surfaced openly while Ahmed, typically conflict-averse, simply nodded. A practical intervention worth considering is the use of structured peer accountability frameworks, such as individually assigned deliverable ownership logged in shared project management tools, which reduces the diffusion of responsibility that enables social loafing. According to Gilson et al. (2021), teams with clearly distributed role accountability and visible progress tracking report both higher productivity and lower incidences of perceived inequity. GCC organizational contexts, where hierarchical deference may suppress direct peer confrontation, make proactive structural interventions especially relevant rather than relying on team members to self-correct through open conflict.

Recommended References

(APA 7th Edition)

1. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2023). Organizational behavior (19th ed.). Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/organizational-behavior/P200000005849
2. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2021). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211060888
3. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681
4. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
5. Al-Ansari, M., & Zaman, S. (2022). Group dynamics and employee motivation in Gulf-region organizations: Cultural antecedents and managerial implications. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(8), 1641–1668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1810741