AB1601 – Organizational Behavior & Design

SEMESTER 2, 2016‐2017
Examiners’ Reports

Course Co-ordinator: Dr Koh Cheng Boon

General Comments
The format for this examination paper was similar to that of previous semesters, comprising
three case scenarios with three sub‐parts for each scenario. The questions were designed to test
students’ ability to apply concepts and theories learned during the course. Together, the nine
subparts covered most of the major topics in the course.
The focus of the examination was on the application of theories and less on critical thinking.
Where critique was required, they were limited to critiquing the application of a theory as described
in the passage.
The three questions and their sub-parts also varied in levels of difficulty, to differentiate the
better students. To get high marks, students needed to identify and apply relevant OB concepts and
theories, to the key issues or examples described in each case.

Most students did not perform well for this examination. A wide range of different
performances was observed. A group of students scored extremely high scores and another group
performed between fairly well to badly for this examination.

Common mistakes, which led to weaker answers, include the failure to:

• Read the question(s) carefully

Being an open-book examination, students were required to be able to apply the various
theoretical frameworks/concepts to the issues articulated in the case study, rather than simply
listing down factors that had been taken from the text or lecture notes. The better answers were
those that were able to diagnose the situation correctly, select and apply the appropriate theories
and frameworks and justify their answers with evidence provided in the case studies.

1|Page
Question 1:

Most students did above average for this question. The mean score was a high ‘B’. The main
differentiator between students who scored well and scored poorly is the way they answered
Question 1c.

For Question 1a, most students did very well for this question. Most of the students were
able to identify correctly, at least, 2 out of the three required values from Schwartz’s Value Theory.
Some common mistakes include providing wrong examples for the identified values.

For Question 1b, most students identified correctly the type of power as socialised power.
On the bases of power, most students correctly identified the bases as referent, expert and/or
legitimate power. However, some students were not able to support their choice with correct
evidence from the case.

For Question 1c, some students correctly used Azjen’s Theory to analyse Chin’s behaviour of
leading the movement to help single mothers. They provided evidence of Chin’s attitude towards
this behaviour, the subjective norm towards this behaviour, and Chin’s perceived ease or difficulty of
performing this behaviour. However, others provided evidence that indicated a lack of
understanding of the use of Azjen’s model. Common mistakes included inferring Chin’s childhood
experience of watching her mother suffer as the ‘subjective norm’ of the lack of support from the
society for single mothers.

Question 2:

Again, most students could have done better for this question. The mean score was ‘B-‘.
General comments on the question: most students failed to show a good understanding of the
requirements for this question especially for 2(a) and 2 (c). Once saving grace was that most
students did very well for 2 (b). A large number of students did badly for 2(c).

For Question (2a), students who did well identified correct values and provided good
examples for the four type of organisational culture. However, it was observed that quite a
significant number of students only identified values of two types of culture or did not cite the
correct evidence from the case to support their answers. Some students wasted time in analysing
and deducing a prominent culture of the company.

For Question (2b), most students did very well for this question. Some weaker answers
failed to provide the correct evidence to support the characteristic identified or identify the wrong
characteristics that were not evident in the case. Incorrect answers include extraversion, high in self-
esteem, high in agreeableness, and low in neuroticism.

For Question (2c), was badly answered. Students who did well were able to identify the
dominant leadership style as Transformational Leadership, named the leadership behaviours (4 Is)
and provided correct examples from the case to support their answers. Those who did not do well
tried to force-fit the examples from the case to support their answers.

2|Page
Question 3:

The mean score for Q3 was a ‘B’. Most students did very well for Q3a and 3c. A significant
number of students did not do well for Q3b. Many students who excelled, were able to manage their
time effectively and answer succinctly.

For Question 3a, most students were able to get the full marks by identifying the correct
typology of change (radically innovative) and providing the correct justification from the passage.
No marks were given for the wrong answer. A small number of students presented answers that
were about forces of change, indicating that they did not understand the question.

Students who did well for Question 3b were able to systematically list out the various steps
beginning with ‘Supervisor Expectancy’,’ Leadership’, etc., and providing justifications for all the
steps. They were also able to weave in the concepts of the Pygmalion and Galatea effects, defined
correctly and with appropriate justifications. Weaker answers either did not identify all the steps
and/or presented them in the wrong sequence. Some students were able to identify the steps
correctly but did not provide evidence from the passage to support their answer. Other talked
about the Galatea and the Pygmalion effects separately, missing out on the sequence of events that
would have made the answer more holistic. Only partial marks were awarded for such answers.

Most students were able to get full marks for Question 3c by drawing relevant concepts
from ‘Why Teams Fail’ and supporting their answers with evidence from the passage. Those who
used concepts from ‘Characteristics of Effective Teams’ and ‘Antecedents of Conflict’ may have also
received partial to full marks if they were able to support their answers with evidence from the
passage. No marks were awarded if the concept was wrong or the justification was wrong.

End of report

3|Page