MGMT 301 – Organizational Behavior
Assignment 1: Individual Behavior and Personality in the Workplace

1. Course Context and Assignment Background

Organizational Behavior examines how individuals, groups, and structures interact within organizations — and why understanding those interactions matters for anyone who plans to lead or work in a professional setting. In this course, we look at both the theoretical side and the practical side, and Assignment 1 sits squarely at the beginning of that journey, when we are focused on the individual level of analysis.

By now, you have covered the foundational concepts related to individual differences — specifically personality frameworks and how they shape behavior at work. This assignment asks you to move beyond the lecture slides and apply those concepts to a real (or realistic) workplace case. Think of it less as an academic exercise and more as the kind of analysis a junior HR consultant or team leader might actually be expected to write.

One thing worth noting at the outset: this is not a personal reflection paper. You are being assessed on your ability to use theory to explain observable behavior, not to share personal opinions or describe what you would do in a general sense.

2. Learning Outcomes Assessed

This assignment directly assesses the following course learning outcomes (CLOs):

• CLO 1: Identify and explain key individual-level factors — including personality, perception, and attitudes — that influence behavior in organizational settings.
• CLO 2: Apply established OB frameworks (such as the Big Five personality model and Attribution Theory) to analyze specific workplace scenarios.
• CLO 3: Communicate analysis clearly and professionally in written form, using correctly formatted APA 7th edition citations.

3. Assignment Task

Read the case scenario provided below carefully. Then write a structured analytical report (1,200–1,500 words) that addresses all four parts described in Section 4.

Case Scenario: The Newcomer at Khaleeji Ventures

Khaleeji Ventures is a mid-sized logistics company based in Kuwait City, operating across the GCC region. The company recently hired two new employees — Rania and Tariq — for identical junior analyst roles within the Operations department.

Rania arrives early every day, organizes her workspace before starting any task, double-checks her reports before submission, and rarely initiates casual conversation with colleagues. She tends to keep to herself during team meetings unless directly asked for input. When a project deadline was unexpectedly moved up by one week, Rania stayed late three evenings in a row without being asked and completed her section ahead of schedule. Her line manager, however, described her as “not really a team player” and noted that she “keeps too much to herself.”

Tariq, on the other hand, is frequently the loudest voice in team meetings. He volunteers for new projects enthusiastically, often before fully understanding the scope, and his colleagues enjoy working with him. He has missed two deadlines in his first month — both times due to what he described as “unexpected personal commitments.” His line manager called him “a real asset to team morale” and expressed confidence that his time management will improve.

Despite Rania’s strong output, her performance review score was lower than Tariq’s after the first month. When asked, the line manager said Rania “just doesn’t seem engaged.”

4. Report Requirements (All Four Parts Are Compulsory)

Part A — Personality Analysis Using the Big Five Model (approx. 350–400 words)

Using the Big Five personality traits (OCEAN), analyze the dominant personality characteristics of both Rania and Tariq as they appear in the case. Your analysis should go beyond simply labeling each trait — explain how each trait you identify is supported by specific evidence from the scenario. Do not list traits without connecting them back to observable behavior in the case.

Part B — Perception and Attribution (approx. 300–350 words)

Apply Attribution Theory to explain the line manager’s evaluation of both employees. Specifically, address whether the manager’s judgments appear to reflect internal or external attributions, and consider whether any perceptual errors (such as the halo effect or attribution bias) may be at play. Be precise — name the perceptual concept, define it briefly, and then show where it appears in the case.

Part C — Implications for Management Practice (approx. 300–350 words)

Based on your analysis in Parts A and B, identify two specific management recommendations for the line manager at Khaleeji Ventures. Your recommendations must be grounded in OB theory — not general common sense — and should be practical enough for a working manager to act on. Vague suggestions such as “the manager should be more fair” are not sufficient here.

Part D — Reflection on Organizational Fit (approx. 150–200 words)

In a brief closing section, consider how the concept of Person–Organization (P–O) Fit applies to this scenario. Does the organizational culture at Khaleeji Ventures, as it appears in the case, seem better suited to one employee type over the other? This section allows slightly more interpretive latitude, but any claim you make should still be anchored to course concepts.

5. Formatting and Submission Requirements

• Word count: 1,200–1,500 words (body text only; cover page and reference list are excluded from the count)
• Font: Times New Roman or Calibri, 12pt
• Line spacing: Double-spaced throughout
• Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides
• Cover page: Include your full name, student ID, course code and title, instructor’s name, and submission date
• Headings: Use the four Part headings (Part A, B, C, D) as section headers in your report
• References: Minimum three (3) academic sources, APA 7th Edition format; at least two must be peer-reviewed journal articles published after 2015
• File name format: MGMT301_Assignment1_StudentID_LastName.docx
• Submit via the Moodle assignment link before 11:59 PM on the due date

Academic Integrity Notice: All submissions are processed through Turnitin. A similarity index above 20% will be referred for review. The use of AI-generated content as your own submitted work is a breach of AUM’s Academic Integrity Policy and will be treated accordingly. You are encouraged to use AI tools for research orientation only, not for writing your report.

6. Grading Rubric (Total: 100 Points → Scaled to 15%)

7. Guidance Notes from the Instructor

A few things that tend to separate stronger submissions from weaker ones in this assignment:

• Students who score well on Part A usually go beyond naming a trait and instead explain why a specific behavior in the case is evidence of that trait. For example, Rania staying late without being asked could reasonably be linked to high Conscientiousness — but you need to make that logical connection explicit.
• For Part B, make sure you understand the difference between a fundamental attribution error and a halo/horn effect before you write. They are not the same thing, and using them interchangeably will cost you marks.
• On Part C, try to connect your recommendation directly to a named theory or model. For instance, if you are recommending a structured performance evaluation process, you might anchor that in research on reducing rater bias rather than simply saying “the manager needs training.”
• The word limit is firm at 1,500 words. Going significantly over suggests the analysis is not yet focused; going under typically signals that depth is missing.
• At least two of your three required sources should be peer-reviewed journal articles. Textbook chapters can count as one source but should not make up the majority of your reference list.

8. Sample Answer Direction (Orientation Excerpt — Not a Model Answer)

9.  Learning Resources and References

The following peer-reviewed sources are recommended to support your analysis in this assignment. You are not limited to these, but each is directly relevant to the concepts assessed.

1. Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2018). Organizational behavior: Bridging science and practice (3rd ed.). Flat World Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117703045
2. Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033901
3. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.690
4. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
5. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2023). Organizational behavior (19th ed.). Pearson. [Available via AUM library database and Pearson eText portal]