Exam notes 2025 - Micro Macro

Organisational Behaviour MGMT20001 Undergraduate level 2 University of Melbourne Exam notes 2025 - Micro + Macro

• Case studies
• Applications
• Summaries
• 104 common test bank questions with answers
• 75 most important core concepts explained

Literature "Organisational Behaviour" (6th edition) by Steven McShane, Mara Olekalns et. al 1 / 4

MICRO SECTION

1.Comprehensive table of all theory covered under this section + my own corresponding case study applications 2.My practice responses for the Micro section of the final exam

KEY: phrases in RED are micro theories you can name-drop for extra

points 2 / 4

THEORYAPPLICATION

PERCEPTION, ATTRIBUTION AND DECISION- MAKING

PERCEPTION: process of organising and interpreting sensory impressions to give meaning to your environment

Attribution Theory: perception of another’s

behaviour involves an attempt to determine whether it was internally or externally caused

-Internal: under personal control

-External: forced by

situation Depends on:

-Distinctiveness: same behaviour in

different circumstances  internal

-Consensus: others behave similarly

in same situation  external

-Consistency: predictable behaviour

in the long term  internal

A team member failed to meet a deadline:

-Another team member informed me that he tended to make promises he can’t keep (low distinctiveness) -All other group members had met the deadline (low consensus) -This was not the first time he failed to submit his contribution in time (high consistency) This was likely to be internally caused

Fundamental attribution error: tendency to

underestimate influence of external factors and overestimate influence of internal factors

Self-serving bias: tendency to attribute

personal success to internal factors and put blame for failures on external factors

Shortcuts when judging others:

-Primacy effect: conclusions

drawn within a matter of seconds -Selective perception -Halo effect -Contrast effect -Stereotyping -Projection

-Contrast effect: initially perceived my

group as low-performing due to recent experiences with an exceptional group

-Stereotyping: assumed an

international student would be incompetent with English writing

-Projection: I assumed everyone would

be just as motivated as I am to achieve a high grade on this assignment

Self-fulfilling prophecy: behaving consistently

with others’ inaccurate expectations of you Group’s general stereotyping of international student led her to contribute little to the writing of the assignment, and instead she took on a more research-based role Unskilled and unaware False- consensus effect One of my teammates believed she was particularly proficient in English, and hence volunteered to do much of the writing. A more proficient teammate did not realise that she was in fact better suited to do the writing until she was tasked with editing the other’s work DECISION-MAKING in organisations is based on people’s perceptions

Rational decision-making: six steps

-Define problem -Identify decision criteria -Allocate weights to criteria -Develop alternatives -Evaluate alternatives -Select optimal alternative We did not apply this method. Careful consideration was not needed for the types of decisions that were made – they were simple, easily reached and agreed upon 3 / 4

Bounded rationality: making decisions by

constructing simplified models that extract essential features from problems without capturing all their complexity, so that a decision that satisfices may be reached and time and effort may be saved ^

Heuristics: rules of thumb or institutionalised

decision rules We used conventions to decide how to

approach the work in our group: for e.g., it is

common for school groups to systematically divide the workload between individuals, who are then to submit their personal contributions into a combined group effort before a certain deadline. This is the way we approached things

Biases and Errors:

-Overconfidence -Anchoring -Escalation of commitment -Non-decision-making

-Overconfidence: a teammate who

grew complacent due to arrogance

-Anchoring: I initially believed all of my

teammates were idiots so I tried to take charge of everything even after they proved to not be idiots

-Escalation of commitment: I sensed

that I might be approaching my work wrong, but persisted with it anyway because I’d already done so much

-Non-decision making: see heuristics

Individual differences affect biases:

-Personality -Gender

I am achievement-striving so:

-Self-serving bias to maintain my self- esteem -Escalation of commitment to put off failure

Most of our group was female:

-More likely to rehash decisions because it’s safe – see heuristics -More careful consideration before decisions – the male in our group was able to reach decisions and conclusions more quickly

TEAMS AND LEADERSHIP

Formal groups: groups established intentionally

by organisations to facilitate achievement of goals set by organisations themselves

Informal groups: groups that emerge

naturally/spontaneously in response to common interests of their members We were a formal group. We were intentionally formed (albeit by our own selections) for the clear, common goal of successfully completing a school assignment

TUCKMAN’S FIVE-STAGE MODEL OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT

Forming:

-Members orient themselves by testing the waters -Get to know each other and seek to establish ground rules -Maintenance Some from different cultures We were anxious to get along and not step on each other’s toes I was curious to determine whether my teammates were aiming for a goal similar to

• / 4