relationship between Organizational Behaviour variables)

Detailed Instructions about Assignment #2 (relationship between Organizational Behaviour variables):
Done as an individual
Weight: 30%
1500-2000 words essay

Topic of your essay:
To shape your topic for this assignment, first, choose concept 1 from the list below:
? Job satisfaction,
? Job involvement,
? Organizational commitment,
? Perceived organizational support,
? Employee engagement,
? Affect,
? Ability,
? Personality,
? Motivation,
? Values,
? trust
Then, choose concept 2 from the list below:
? Job performance,
? Absenteeism,
? Employee turnover,
? Job satisfaction,
? Deviant workplace behaviour,
? Creativity,
? Organizational commitment
The topic of your essay for this assignment will be:
?The influence of Concept 1 on Concept 2?.
For example, if you chose ?job satisfaction? as your concept 1 and ?employee turnover? as concept 2, then your topic will be ?the influence of job satisfaction on employee turnover?.

How to conduct literature review and write a 1500-2000 word essay:
The following components are required in your essay:
1) Introduction: introducing Concept 2 (e.g. employee turnover)
2) Concept 1 (e.g. job satisfaction)
3) A parent theory (to justify the impact of Concept 1 on Concept 2)
4) Relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2 (e.g. Relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover)
5) proposition
6) Conclusions (implications of your conclusions for practice)
Details about each component of the essay:
1) Introduction (introducing Concept 2; e.g. employee turnover)
Conduct a literature review to understand how the existing studies (peer-reviewed journal articles) conceptualised or defined Concept 2 (e.g. employee turnover). For example, if your topic is: ?what is the influence of job satisfaction on employee turnover??, then you need to synthesise the existing research to see how different researchers conceptualised (defined) concept of ?employee turnover?.
For this section of your essay, first, write an introductory paragraph introducing Concept 2 and briefly make mention of the ways the existing literature approached this concept. Then, explain why it is important to study Concept 2. For example, if you chose ?employee turnover? as concept 2, explain why ?employee turnover? is an important issue to be solved in an organization; Or if you chose ?employee commitment? as Concept 2, then you need to explain why ?employee commitment? is important for organizations, and why organizations need to enhance or maintain employee commitment.
Important:
You are required to provide references from peer-reviewed journal articles within text (please see the file on the Moodle explaining how this essay will be marked).
Finally, clarify how you, yourself, conceptualised Concept 2. That is to say, you need to clarify that the way you approached and defined Concept 2 is in line with a particular existing conceptualisation you discussed in your paper while synthesising the literature.

2) Concept 1 (e.g. job satisfaction)
Conduct a literature review to understand how the existing studies (peer-reviewed journal articles) conceptualised or defined Concept 1 (e.g. job satisfaction). For example, if your topic is: ?what is the influence of job satisfaction on employee turnover??, then you need to synthesise the existing research to see how different researchers conceptualised (defined) concept of ?job satisfaction?.
For this section of your essay, first write an introductory paragraph introducing Concept 1 and briefly make mention of the ways the existing literature approached this concept.
Important:
You are required to provide references from peer-reviewed journal articles within text (please see the file on the Moodle explaining how this essay will be marked).
Finally, clarify how you, yourself, conceptualised Concept 1. That is to say, you need to clarify that the way you approached and defined Concept 1 is in line with a particular existing conceptualisation you discussed in your paper while synthesising the literature.

3) Parent theory (to justify the impact of Concept 1 on Concept 2)
Find a parent theory to justify why you think Concept 1 influences Concept 2. By doing this you are actually practicing deduction. See an example of deduction:
1) All animals require Oxygen (this is a parent theory).
2) Horses are animals.
3) Therfore, horses require Oxygen (your proposed conclusion).
Or:
1) Attitude influences behaviour (theory of reasoned action: a parent theory)
2) ?job satisfaction? is analogous to the concept of attitude (an understanding based on your conceptualisation and synthesis of the literature presented in section 2).
3) Therfore, satisfaction influences (turnover) behaviour (your proposed conclusion)
Note: A Parent theory is any robust (famous) theory, which has been tested several times and has been shown to be generalizable to many contexts. Since parent theories are reliable, they can be used to justify relevant hypotheses in other research works.
Several famous theories were discussed during the semester (e.g. theory of planned behaviour, attribution theory, social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, personality-job-fit theory, etc.).They are all famous robust theories (parent theories) that, depending on the context, can be relied on and can be used to justify the relationship you propose might exist between two concepts (e.g. Relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover).
You need to justify that Concept 1 influences Concept 2 relying on a parent theory. To this end, first, explain the parent theory in a paragraph. Then in a second paragraph justify why you think this parent theory can explain why Concept 1 might influence Concept 2 (for justification, see the example of deduction mentioned above).

4) Relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2 (e.g. Relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover)
To further justify that Concept 1 might influence Concept 2, you are required to do a literature review and see if there is an existing study which found this relationship statistically significant. Develop a table in which one column contains the list of all research (references) which found this relationship statistically significant and a column which found this relationship non-significant. You can further synthesise the literature by exploring the similarities and differences of the studies in each column. For example, you might find that the majority of the research found the influence of Concept 1 on Concept 2 is statistically significant for men vs. women, for baby boomers as compared to generation Y, or for people with different personality traits or intrinsic motives. See if you can further synthesise the literature to provide support for the possible influence of Concept 1 on Concept 2. Also acknowledge the studies that did not find this relationship statistically significant [Please note that, in addition to presenting your synthesis in a table, you need to describe the table in two to three paragraphs and elaborate on your synthesis of the literature].
Important:
Please see the file on the Moodle site to find out how this section will be marked including information on required number of peer-reviewed journal articles. Please don?t forget that you need to provide references both in the table and within text.

5) Proposition
In this section you write down your proposition in italic. For example, you can say, relying on the parent theory (e.g. theory of planned behaviour) and based on the synthesis of the literature discussed in the previous sections, we propose that:
Concept A influences Concept B
Or:
Concept A influences Concept B for men than women
Or:
Concept A influences Concept B for people from collectivist societies than people from individualist societies.

6) Conclusions (implications of your conclusions for practice)
For a real research, after developing propositions or hypotheses, the next step would be collecting data using a data collection method (e.g. experiments or surveys) and analysing data using a statistical technique (e.g. ANOVA) to see if the proposition is statistically significant. If the proposed relationship was found to be statistically significant, the proposition would be accepted. If the results were not statistically significant, the propositions would be rejected. Findings then would be discussed and implications for practice and theory would be highlighted.
For this assignment, HOWEVER, there is no need to collect data and test your propositions. Assuming that your proposition is accepted, provide recommendations for managers in relation to the influence of concept 1 on concept 2, and explain how concept 2 can be prevented or how the likelihood of concept 2 to happen can be enhanced by managing concept 1

In addition to the instructions above, please make sure you read the file in which I have explained how your assignment will be marked. It is important to read this file to know about the evaluation criteria and expectations from early weeks of the semester. Furthermore, please read the checklist to know about the font size, minimum number of peer-reviewed journal articles you need to synthesise, etc.

How your assignment #2 (relationship between OB variables) will be marked:
Unit 7878
Student ID:

Subject less than 50 Pass
50-64 Credit
65-74 Distinction
75-84 High Distinction
85 plus
Introduction (Concept 2)
-No/Little analysis or evaluation evident, pure description and ?lists? from literature.

-No relevant examples used;

-It is not clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 2 in his/her paper.

-There is no explanation why it is important for an organization to enhance or reduce Concept 2

-And/Or:
Fewer than 2 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Some analysis and evaluation evident but still very descriptive.

-No real synthesis of ideas and literature.

-Any examples given only add a little to the depth of the argument;

-Some of the existing conceptualisations of Concept 2 in the literature were discussed, but synthesis of the literature, arguments and discussions are not in-depth.

-It is not quite clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 2 in his/her paper.

– Some explanations why it is important for an organization to enhance or reduce Concept 2 were provided.

-And/Or:
Fewer than 4 (but more than 2) peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Good analysis and evaluation with little description.

-Some good synthesis of ideas and literature. Examples add clarity to the argument;

-Most of the existing conceptualisations of Concept 2 in the existing literature were discussed and synthesised.

-It is relatively clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 2 in his/her paper.

– Some good explanations why it is important for an organization to enhance or reduce Concept 2 were provided.

-At least 4 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Very good analysis and evaluation.

-Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated.

-All ideas thoroughly considered;

-Almost all of the existing conceptualisations of Concept 2 in the existing literature were discussed and synthesised.

-It is also quite clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 2 in his/her paper.

– Very good explanations why it is important for an organization to enhance or reduce Concept 2 were provided.

-At least 4 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Excellent analysis and evaluation.

-All ideas thoroughly considered;

-Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated;

-The existing conceptualisations of Concept 2 in the literature were discussed and synthesised highly comprehensively with new and innovative ideas being formulated.

-It is also quite clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 2 in his/her paper.

– Comprehensive explanations why it is important for an organization to enhance or reduce Concept 2 were provided.

-At least 4 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed.
20% 0-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20

Concept 1 -No/Little analysis or evaluation evident, pure description and ?lists? from literature.

-No relevant examples used;

-It is not clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 1 in his/her paper.

-And/Or:
Fewer than 2 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Some analysis and evaluation evident but still very descriptive.

-No real synthesis of ideas and literature.

-Any examples given only add a little to the depth of the argument;

-Some of the existing conceptualisations of Concept 1 in the literature were discussed, but synthesis of the literature, arguments and discussions are not in-depth.

-It is not quite clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 1 in his/her paper.

-And/Or:
Fewer than 4 (but more than 2) peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Good analysis and evaluation with little description.

-Some good synthesis of ideas and literature. Examples add clarity to the argument;

-Most of the existing conceptualisations of Concept 1 in the existing literature were discussed and synthesised.

-It is relatively clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 1 in his/her paper.

-At least 4 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Very good analysis and evaluation.

-Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated.

-All ideas thoroughly considered;

-Almost all of the existing conceptualisations of Concept 1 in the existing literature were discussed and synthesised.

-It is also quite clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 1 in his/her paper.

-At least 4 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Excellent analysis and evaluation.

-All ideas thoroughly considered;

-Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated;

-The existing conceptualisations of Concept 1 in the literature were discussed and synthesised highly comprehensively with new and innovative ideas being formulated.

-It is also quite clear how the student himself/herself conceptualised and approached Concept 1 in his/her paper.

-At least 4 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed.
15% 0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15

Parent theory -No/Little analysis or evaluation of the theory evident, pure description and ?lists? from literature.

-No relevant examples used;

-There is little or no justification how the Parent theory can explain possible relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2.

-No peer reviewed journal articles was cited.

-Some analysis and evaluation of the parent theory evident but still very descriptive.

-No real synthesis of ideas and literature. Any examples given only add a little to the depth of the argument;

-There is some justification how the parent theory can explain possible relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2.

– At least 1 peer reviewed journal articles was used as a reference.
-Good analysis and evaluation of the parent theory with little description.

-Some good synthesis of ideas and literature. Examples add clarity to the argument;

-How the parent theory can explain possible relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2 has been justified reasonably well.

-Justifications make sense, and they are reasonably relevant.

– At least 1 peer reviewed journal articles was used as a reference.
-Very good analysis and evaluation of the parent theory.

-Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated.

-All ideas thoroughly considered;

-How the parent theory can explain possible relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2 has been justified quite well.

-Justifications make quite a lot of sense, and they are quite relevant.

– At least 1 peer reviewed journal articles was used as a reference.

-Excellent analysis and evaluation of the parent theory.

-All ideas thoroughly considered;

-Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated;

-How the parent theory can explain possible relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2 has been justified quite well.

-Justifications make quite a lot of sense, and they are highly relevant.

– At least 1 peer reviewed journal articles was used as a reference.

15% 0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15

Relationship between Concept 1 and Concept 2 -No/Little analysis or evaluation evident, pure description and ?lists? from literature.

-No relevant examples used;

-And/or:
Justification of relationship between concept 1 and concept 2 were completely irrelevant.

-The information presented in the table was not discussed and elaborated within text;

-And/or:
The discussions within text were not relevant to the information presented in the table.

-And/Or:
Fewer than 5 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed. -Some analysis and evaluation evident but still very descriptive.

-No real synthesis of ideas and literature.

-Any examples given only add a little to the depth of the argument;

-Some relevant justification of relationship between concept 1 and concept 2.

-The information presented in the table was discussed and elaborated within text to some extent;

-The discussions within text could have been more relevant to the information presented in the table.

-And/Or:
Fewer than 8 (but more than 5) peer reviewed journal articles were discussed.
-Good analysis and evaluation with little description.

-Some good synthesis of ideas and literature. Examples add clarity to the argument;

-Justifications of relationship between concept 1 and concept 2 were reasonably relevant and in depth.

-The information presented in the table was relatively discussed and elaborated within text;

-The discussions within text were relatively relevant to the information presented in the table.

-At least 8 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed.
-Very good analysis and evaluation. Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated.

-All ideas thoroughly considered; Justifications of relationship between concept 1 and concept 2 were quite relevant and in depth.

-The information presented in the table was discussed and elaborated within text in depth and quite well.

-The discussions within text were quite relevant to the information presented in the table.

-At least 8 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed.
-Excellent analysis and evaluation. Ideas, literature and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated;

-Justifications of relationship between concept 1 and concept 2 were highly relevant, creative and highly in depth.

-The information presented in the table was discussed and elaborated within text highly in depth and comprehensively with new and innovative ideas being formulated.

-The discussions within text were highly relevant to the information presented in the table.

-At least 8 peer reviewed journal articles were discussed.
25% 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25

proposition -No Proposition was included;

Or:

-proposition is not relevant to the conducted literature review and justifications -Proposition is reasonably relevant to the conducted literature review and justifications -Proposition is highly relevant to the conducted literature review and justifications
2% 0 1 2

Conclusions (implications of your conclusions for practice)
-No/Poor conclusions.

-No/Little elaboration and justifications of recommendations for managers

-Some conclusions but not well developed.

-Some elaboration on recommendations and justifications of recommendations are evident but still very descriptive.

-Clear conclusions developing out of the essay and clarifying the overall outcomes.

-Good elaboration on recommendations justifications of recommendation

-Clear conclusions developing out of the essay, clarifying the arguments made & optimizing the overall outcomes.

-Very good elaboration on recommendations and justifications of recommendation

-Clear and concise conclusions developing out of the essay, clarifying the arguments made & optimizing the overall outcomes.

-Excellent elaboration on recommendations and justifications of recommendation
15% 0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15

Referencing and structure of the essay -Not well presented,

And/or :

-No referencing -Poor referencing,

And/or:

-Poor structure -Reasonable presentation and referencing,

-Structure of the presentation needs to be tighter. -Good
presentation, and
structure,

-consistent and
accurate
referencing -Excellent presentation, structure and totally accurate referencing,

-Innovative ideas
and flair evident
8% 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8

Total mark

find the cost of your paper