FINAL PRESENTATION

Organizational Behaviour

Group 1:
Agustinus –
Nghiem Trung Kien – 107M02273
Pham Quoc Trong – 107M02238
 Like Reason

Intelligent when the manager want employee do something and the employee understant what does he want

On Time It just their personality

Subordinates
Confident They have the skill to do the thing they're attempting

Honest It's easier than lying

Hard Working They have motivation and priority

Dislike Reason
Not Accountable They are not confident

Lazy They lack of motivation

Subordinates
Late It just their personality

Not have self control isn't the ability to regulate one's emotions, thoughts, and behavior in the face of temptations and impulses
 Like Reason
Teamwork Make the work easier

Creative They have thinking different than the other

Coworkers Avoid gossip. They didn't crave intimacy and sense of connection

Serious in work They have the motivation to do something

Ask what they think They want to know other people opinion

Dislike Reason

Selfish They feel the insecurity of not having enough

Not Responsible don't receive error when do wrong

Coworkers
Gossip They want to be belong and included

Lie They didn't want to dissapoint you

 Like Reason
Problem Solving Skill When solving problem, the superior focus more on the solution rather than the problem

Communication skills You can convince everybody

Superiors
Patience The superior didn't give up at difficult work / times

Inspiration have motivation to work

Support Employee They want their employee to have a good performance so they can work better

Dislike Reason
Don’t appear to trust or
empower their The superior thinking negatively
employees

Don’t seem to care if The superior are selfish, they don't care whether their people overworked or not, as long as the job get
their people are
overworked done

Superiors Hire and/or promote the

wrong people Connection

Focus more on employee

weaknesses than The superior feeling insecure from the employee good performance and being unfair
strengths

Don’t set clear

expectations The superior itself didn't understand or feel motivated enough
Group’s performance (Bingo, Rufus, Betty Lou, Billy Bob, Angelica, Spot) working together
on the Audience Analysis assignment,

Generally, the group worked well together to complete the assignment, overcome
adversity, climb ever mountain, search high and low...

Criteria
The criteria that the group decided to uphold are as follows. All group members must:
· Do the work assigned to them by the group
· Show up to the agreed upon meetings
· Be accountable for their portion of the work
· Communicate any problems encountered with the group.
Individual Strengths
The specific strengths of the members of the group are:

· Rufus is highly sociable, often propelling the conversation in the group helping to
produce a very positive group atmosphere conductive to communication. For example,
when they first got together he kept the conversation going and made them feel at ease
by making them laugh.

· Betty Lou is a very strong technical writer. We sent her all the final drafts and we
received all the points for editing, so they owe that grade to her.

· Billy Bob acted partially as leader of the group, stepping up at group meetings and
helping guide the group process. Whenever we’d all sit around staring at our shoes, Billy
Bob would dig up the outline and ask us questions.

· Angelica acted partially as leader of the group, stepping up outside group meetings,
putting together all the individual work the group emailed him, creating the group
project.

· Spot was a large help when editing our projects as a group. He brought his laptop to
the meetings and typed everything up.

· Bingo, also helped edit all group work, and worked partially as a leader, helping
guide group discussion and editing.
Individual Weaknesses
Nevertheless, these weaknesses were:

· Rufus’s natural loquaciousness can get a bit out of hand some times, like the time he
jumped up on the table and started howling like a baboon.

· Betty Lou’s amiability translated into a moderate lack of assertion. For example, she
told Bingo one on one a couple of her ideas but never brought them up with the group.

· Billy Bob’s large workload, both through campus and through outside employment,
gave the impression that he was overly busy. He always showed up 20 minutes late for
every meeting.

· Angelica’s natural niceness and sociability kept him from taking a leadership
position. Perhaps this was because of his/her recent sex change, but it would have been
nice if he would have led the group at least once.

· Spot’s natural organization and ‘go-getting’ often had him take control of the project
without full group consultation. I think that if he toned it down a bit the shyer members
would have spoken up more. He also shot down others’ decent ideas more than once.

· Bingo own natural quietness at times prevented me from fully speaking my mind,
for fear of being abrupt and rude.
Numerical Summation Of Individual Contributions

Based on the above criteria and descriptions of individual strengths, weaknesses, we

would rate each group member’s over-all contribution to the group project as follows.

· Rufus: 7/10

· Betty Lou: 9/10

· Billy Bob: 7/10

· Angelica: 8/10

· Spot: 9/10

· Myself: 7/10
Group Strengths

As a group they were highly successful in effectively breaking down all assignments into
even portions, as well as assigning portions to specific group members that played to
their strengths, thus making all group work easier. Specifically, the group strengths are:

· An ability to create a balanced workload for all group members

· The recognition of individual group member’s strengths and weaknesses, allowing

the group to work extremely efficiently

· A positive group atmosphere, conducive to communication

· A shared responsibility of a good work ethic, propelling each group member to

complete their portion of the workload, attributing to an effective use of time.
Group Weaknesses

The actual group weaknesses were:

· Lack of a single leader entity, at times causing lack of coordination among the
group

· Lack of a single consistent editor, at times leading the whole group to attempt
editing, which caused a disorganized editorial process.

Despite these few weaknesses, the group’s strengths managed to overcome via
individual hard work, a group amiability, and an effective work and communication
environment.
Summary

Despite what few weaknesses they had as a group and as individuals, they worked
effectively and efficiently, playing to the groups strengths to cover individual weaknesses.
In the future, few changes would and should be made. These changes will not drastically
affect the group, because all the hard work and individual responsibility helped the group
work almost to peak efficiency. The changes I would make are:

· A single group leader, designated at the beginning of the group

· A single group editor, designated at the beginning of the group, who edits the very
first draft as well as the last, which must be approved by the group

· More out of class group communication, encouraging a greater group cohesiveness.

With these simple changes I believe the group would be tweaked up the last step to top
group efficiency and effectiveness, allowing the group to function as best as possible.