a management question
Learning Goal: I’m working on a management question and need guidance to help me learn.The Personal Case Part 2 paper should include the following sections: 1) a brief summary of the HR and Structural frames from Part 1, 2) Political frame analysis, 3) symbolic frame analysis, 4) a list of alternatives from which key players can choose to resolve the situation, and 5) a suggested action plan for key players (this should include an action plan for each key player).In general, the paper should cover:Politics (e.g., conflict about issues, conflict between people, power, coalitions)
Symbols (e.g., organizational culture, symbols, myths, organizational stories and rituals)
Ethics, leadership, and change as appropriate (e.g., conflict over what is moral, leader behavior, resistance to change)
Reflections on your own professional practice–This paper provides you with the opportunity to rethink a situation, and consider what could have been done differently, and how.
Although it is hard to predict how long your paper should be, you should probably expect to need 15-20 pages (double-spaced) to convey all of the required elements. This paper must include at least 10 outside sources that are well integrated into the paper and help more fully analyze the case. The maximum length allowed is 23 pages (title page, appendices and reference page/s not included in the total). It should be in APA style, and include an appropriate reference section. Please note that I strongly suggest that you read through chapters 19-20 as you develop this paper—it is especially helpful for thinking through the options and actions you intend to propose.Introduction: Provide a brief explanation of the purpose of the paper.Analysis: Provide a brief retelling of the HR and Structural frames but focus primarily on political and symbolic frames in Part 2. How are the Political and Symbolic frames and related key terms and concepts from our readings relevant to the issues/facts in this case? What do the “facts” of this case look like from the perspective of each of the key “players”? What is the source or basis for any understanding or misunderstanding that is evident in this case? What light can research, using credible source material, shed on the central issue(s) in this case? What needs to be resolved in this case? ***Using the charts and/or tables from the text can be very helpful in this section and should be included!Alternatives: Based on your analysis, what alternatives do key “players” in this case have? What are the probable implications associated with each alternative? Be very specific in this section—what actions can each key player take, and what is the probable outcome of that action.Recommended Action Plan: This section should address recommended actions for each of the key players. What action(s) do you recommend for each of the key players, including yourself? What portions of the analysis lead you to suggest this? It is important in this section, that you include steps necessary for the implementation of the action plan–Justify your recommendation.Leadership Reflection: This section should address the recommended actions you would take if you were the leader and/or manager in your case. If you were a leader/manager one level or more above your current role and had sufficient information about the facts of the case, provide a detailed account of how you would address the situation in a way that would provide the best results, balancing the needs of individuals with the needs of the larger organization. In order to complete this section, you must include references to at least 4 concepts and/or theories included in the textbook or related materials.Pt. 2 Rubric: 300 Pts.ElementHigh QualityMedium QualityLow QualityAnalysis(out of 125)-Summarizes Structural and HR frame from Pt. 1.-Thoroughly discusses and analyses Political and Symbolic frames.-Discusses relevance of key OB and/or frame concepts and theories to case.-Uses OB & frame concepts to analyze case. Examples used to illustrate analysis.-Uses literature to support analysis.-Uses the language of OB.-Devotes significant attention to each frame.-MUST provide direct, thoughtful analysis for each of the key play players.-Answers question: What is going on and why?Summary of frames missing or weak. Devotes unequal attention to the frames. Misses important and/or relevant OB & frame concepts. Literature cited, but not used to support analysis. Uses the language of OB. Partially answers question: What is going on and why?Summary of frames missing or weak. Relevance of key points to case is unclear. Fails to use OB & frame concepts to analyze case. Does not use language of OB. Few examples used to illustrate analysis. Devotes significantly less attention to one or more frames. Does not answer question: What is going on and why?Comments:Alternatives/Options(out of 75)-Pulls analysis together to answer question: What options are there for each of the key players?-Options follow logically from analysis.-Predicts results on various options.-Uses table similar to Issues and Options table-Provides analysis based on the results of the Choose a Frame design (Exhibit 15.2) and offers appropriate options accordingly.Pulls analysis together to answer question: What options are there for each of the key players? May miss some possible options. Offers some predictions of results. Options follow logically from analysis. No table provided.Does not pull analysis together to answer question: What options are there for each of the key players? Misses many possible options. Options do not follow logically from analysis. Does not predict results of various options. No table provided.Comments:Recommendations and action plan(out of 75)-Provides specific recommendations and action steps for each of the key players, including the author.-Then, chooses among possible options based on predictions of results.-Makes recommendations that answer unresolved question.-Recommendations follow from analysis & are consistent with the literature.- May use table similar to Issues and Options table-Provides analysis based on the results of the Choose a Frame design (Exhibit 15.2), and offers appropriate options accordingly.Chooses among possible options based on predictions of results. Offers general recommendations for managerial action. Recommendations answer unresolved question. Recommendations follow from analysis but are not necessarily consistent with the literature. No table provided.Chooses among possible options based on predictions of results. Offers specific recommendations for managerial action. Recommendations answer unresolved question. Recommendations follow from analysis & are consistent with the literature. No table provided.Leadership Reflection(out of 25)-Provides a thoughtful accounting of the actions/intentions of a good leader.-Appropriately balances the needs of individuals with the needs of the larger organization.-Includes at least 4 concepts and/or theories from the textbook to illustrated what/why specific actions were chosen.-Provides some accounting of the actions/intentions of a good leader, but lacks detail or justification.-Does not provide a balanced approach to the analysis and/or actions/intentions.-Includes only 2-3 concepts/theories from the textbook.Key areas of the analysis are missing and/or not appropriately addressed.Comments:Reference Use(Subtract)Uses outside references to support analysis. References are scholarly. 8+ outside references used.Uses at least 6 outside scholarly sources. Evenly mixed between scholarly and trade/news.Does not use outside references to support analysis. Sources are mostly trade or news publications. Uses 0-3 outside sources.Comments:Quotes(Subtract)Uses quotes sparingly & appropriately. Attributes to source.Quotes somewhat too much or uses long quotes. Attributes to source.Uses too many or too long quotes. Source not attributed.APA Style(Subtract)In-text citations and reference list follow APA style. Margins 1″ on all sides. Uses headings appropriately.In-text citations and reference list do not follow APA style.Technical Skills(Subtract)Grammar, punctuation, spelling correct or very few errors.Some grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling errorsGrammar, punctuation, and/or spelling errors interfere with comprehensionReadability(Subtract)Logically organized, good flow, easy to read. Sound sentence structure. Uses active voice.Organization somewhat muddled. Meaning sometimes unclear. Mostly sound sentence structure. Uses mostly active voice.Organization hard to follow. Meaning frequently unclear. Weak sentence structure. Overuses passive voice.NONBN