College of Administration and Finance SciencesAssignment (1)
Deadline: Saturday 22/07/2023 @ 23:59
Course Name: Managerial Accounting Student’s Name:
Course Code: ACCT322
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: Summer
CRN:
Academic Year: 1444 H
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade:
/20
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
• The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated
folder.
• Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
• Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be
reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover
page.
• Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
• Late submission will NOT be accepted.
• Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or
other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
• All answers must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font.
No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism.
• Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
College of Administration and Finance Sciences
Assignment Question(s):
(Marks 20)
Q. 1 KK Corporation uses the following activity rates from its activity-based costing to assign
overhead costs to products.
(5 Marks)
Activity Cost Pools
Setting Up Batches
Assembling Products
Processing Customer orders
Data concerning two products appear below:
Particulars
Number of Batches
Number of Assembly Hours
Number of Customer orders
Activity Rate
SAR 83.75 Per Batch
SAR 2.88 per assembly hours
SAR 50.41 per Customer order
Product A
34
105
17
Product B
41
824
38
Required:
a. How much overhead cost would be assigned to Product A using the company’s activity-based
costing system? Show your work!
b. How much overhead cost would be assigned to Product B using the company’s activity-based
costing system? Show your work!
Answer
College of Administration and Finance Sciences
Q.2 In August 2021, ABC Co. incurred total cost of SAR 29,000 and made 3,100 units. In November
2021, it produced 1,600 units and total costs were SAR 20,000. What are the total fixed cost and
average variable cost?
Answer..
[5 marks]
College of Administration and Finance Sciences
Q.3 Ahmed Corporation manufactures umbrellas. The cloth used in one umbrella costs $ 15. The
corporation rents a manufacturing factory for a monthly rent of $ 275. Prepare a table showing the
Total Fixed Cost, Total Variable cost, Total Cost and Average Fixed Cost, Average Variable Cost,
and Average Cost for three different levels of production. (No. of units at three different levels can
be chosen by you).
(5 Marks)
Answer
College of Administration and Finance Sciences
Q.4 Identify three differences between job order costing and process costing?
(5 Marks)
Answer
المملكة العربية السعودية
وزارة التعليم
الجامعة السعودية اإللكترونية
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University
College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Assignment 1
Organization Design and Development (MGT 404)
Due Date: 03/08/2023 @ 23:59
Course Name:
Student’s Name:
Course Code: MGT404
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: Summer
CRN:
Academic Year:2022-23-Summer
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade:
Marks Obtained/Out of 30
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
General Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated
folder.
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced
for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other
resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No
pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Learning Outcomes:
1. Describe the basic steps of the organizational development process.
2. Evaluate the strategic role of change in the organization and its impact on
organizational performance.
3. Analyze the human, structural and strategic dimensions of the organizational
development.
4. Analyze the ethical issues of the organizational development processes.
Section I. Case Study (15 marks)
Assignment Question(s):
Read the case Lincoln Hospital: Third Party Intervention from book Organization
Development and Change by Cummings. take notes on the diagnosis and
intervention stages for this case and answer the following questions:
1. If you had been called by Lincoln’s president to help resolve the problems
described in the case, how would you have carried out the contracting and
diagnosis stages? (3 Marks)
2. What would you have done differently than what the OD consultant did? (3
Marks)
3. Do you think that the third-party intervention is an appropriate intervention in
this case? Why? (3Marks)
4. What are some other OD interventions that can be appropriate in this case?
Why? (3 Marks)
5. How effective was the third-party intervention? And evaluate its impact. (3
Marks)
Section I. Discussion Questions (15 marks)
Briefly discuss the following questions the (150 – 200 words for each question):
1. Why Change is important in an organization? (3 Marks)
2. What are some events that can occur in the internal or external environment of the
organization and can trigger the need for change in strategy, structure, culture or
processes of the organization? Provide examples. (4 Marks)
3. Discuss the key benefits of Organization Development and how OD can contribute
to improving the organizational effectiveness (Provide Examples). (4 Marks)
4. Explain the role of OD practitioners and describe the competencies required for an
OD practitioner to be effective and successful. (4 Marks)
Note:
•
•
•
Use the concepts developed in this course in your answers.
You must include at least 5 references.
Format your references using APA style.
Answers
1. Answer2. Answer3. Answer-
322
HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
LINCOLN HOSPITAL: THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION*
oon after the election of a new chief of surgery, the president of Lincoln Hospital faced
a crisis. Lincoln, a 400-bed for-profit hospital
in the southwestern United States, was
experiencing severe problems in its operating
room (OR). Forty percent of the OR nurses had
quit during the previous eight months. Their
replacements were significantly less experienced, especially in the specialty areas. Furthermore, not all could be replaced; when the
crisis came to a head, the OR was short seven
surgical nurses.
Also, needed equipment often was not available. On several occasions, orthopedic surgeons
had already begun surgery before they realized
the necessary prosthesis (for example, an artificial hip, finger joint, or knee joint) was not ready,
or was the wrong size, or had not even been
ordered. Surgery then had to be delayed while
equipment was borrowed from a neighboring
hospital. Other serious problems also plagued
the OR. For example, scheduling problems
made life extremely difficult for everyone
involved. Anesthesiologists often were unavailable when they were needed, and habitually
tardy surgeons delayed everyone scheduled
after them. The nursing shortage exacerbated
these difficulties by requiring impossibly tight
scheduling; even when the doctors were ready
to begin, the scheduled nurses might still be
occupied in one of the other ORs.
The surgeons were at odds among themselves. Over 30 of them were widely regarded
as prima donnas who considered their own
time more valuable than anyone else’s and
would even create emergencies in order to
get “prime time” OR slots—for which, as
often as not, they were late. Worst of all, however, the doctors and nurses were virtually at
war. Specifically, Don, the new chief of surgery, was at war with Mary, the veteran OR
director; indeed, he had campaigned on a
promise to get her fired.
*R. Wayne Boss, University of Colorado; Leslee S. Boss,
Organization Research and Development Associates;
Mark W. Dundon, Sisters of Providence Hospital.
Lincoln’s president was faced with a difficult
choice. On the one hand, he needed to satisfy
the physicians, who during the tenure of his predecessor had become accustomed to getting
their way in personnel matters by threatening
to take their patients elsewhere. The market
was, as the physicians knew, increasingly competitive, and the hospital was also faced with
escalating costs, changes in government regulations, and strict Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals standards. Could the president
afford to alienate the surgeons by opposing their
newly chosen representative—who had a large
practice of his own?
On the other hand, could he afford to
sacrifice Mary? She had been OR director for
13 years, and he was generally satisfied with
her. As he later explained,
Mary is a tough lady, and she can be hard
to get along with at times. She also
doesn’t smile all that much. But she does
a lot of things right. She consistently stays
within her budget ….
Furthermore, whereas Don had long been
an outspoken critic of the hospital and was generally distrusted by its administrators, Mary was
loyal, a strict constructionist who adhered firmly
to hospital policies and procedures:
She is supportive of me, of the hospital,
and of our interests. She doesn’t let the
doctors get away with much. She has
been an almost faultless employee for
years, in the sense that she comes to
work, gets the job done, never complains,
and doesn’t make any waves. I really don’t
understand the reason for the recent problems. I trust her and want to keep her. It
would be extremely difficult to replace her.
The last point was a key one; a sister hospital had spent almost three years unsuccessfully trying to recruit an OR director.
After talking with both nurses and doctors,
the president decided not to fire Mary. Instead,
he told both Mary and Don that they must
resolve their differences. They were to begin
Selected Cases
S
PART 3
SELECTED CASES
meeting right away and keep on meeting, however
long it took, until they got the OR straightened out.
The results were predictable. Neither party
wanted to meet with the other. Mary thought the
whole exercise was pointless, and Don saw it as a
power struggle that he could not afford to lose. The
president, who wanted an observer present, chose
Terry, the new executive vice president and chief
operating officer. Mary didn’t know Terry very well
so she asked that her boss, the vice president of
patient services, sit in. Don, who “didn’t trust either
Mary or her boss as far as he could throw them,”
countered with a request for a second of his own,
the vice president for medical services. When the
meeting finally occurred, it quickly degenerated into a
free-for-all, as Don and Mary exchanged accusations,
hotly defended themselves, and interpreted any interventions by the three “observers” as “ taking sides.”
DIAGNOSIS
At this point, Lincoln’s president called me. We
negotiated a psychological contract, where the
president shared the above historical information,
described the problem as he saw it, and identified
his expectations of me and for the project. I, in
turn, articulated my expectations of the president.
We then agreed to take no steps until I had interviewed both Don and Mary.
Later that afternoon, Don expressed his anger
and frustration with the hospital administration
and, most of all, with Mary:
I don’t want to have anything to do with this
lady. She is a lousy manager. Her people can’t
stand to work with her. We don’t have the
equipment or the supplies that we need. The
turnover in the OR is outrageous. The best
nurses have quit, and their replacements
don’t know enough to come in out of the
rain.… All we want is to provide quality patient
care, and she refuses to let us do that. She
doesn’t follow through on things.
He particularly resented Mary’s
deference.
lack of
Mary’s behavior is so disgraceful it is almost
laughable. She shows no respect whatsoever
for the physicians.… She thinks she can tell us
what to do and order us around; and I am not
323
going to put up with it any longer. When I
agreed to take this job as chief of surgery, I
promised my colleagues that I would clean
up the mess that has plagued the OR for
years. I have a mandate from them to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that. The docs
are sick and tired of being abused, and I am
going to deal with this lady head on. If we
got rid of her, 95% of our problems would go
away. She has just gone too far this time.
In his cooler moments, Don admitted that
Mary was only partly to blame for the OR’s problems, but he still insisted she must be fired, if only
to prove to the doctors that the hospital administration was concerned about those problems, and
that something was being done.
Observation: I am always a bit suspicious
about the objectivity of someone who has
reached the conclusion that someone must
be fired. There is almost always something
else that is going on that requires more
investigation.
Mary was both angry and bewildered. She saw
herself as fair and consistent in dealing with doctors and nurses:
Things had gone relatively well until six months
ago. At that time, some of the ortho-pods
started scheduling surgeries and then canceling
them at the last minute, which, in turn, fouled
up the schedule for the rest of the doctors.
When I called them on it, Don went on a rampage. He is the leader of the pack, and now he
has blood in his eyes. I have tried to talk with
him about it, but he won’t listen.
And just as Don’s assessment echoed, in an
exaggerated form, the doctors’ perception of Mary
as an exceptionally strong-willed woman, Mary’s
assessment of Don echoed his reputation among
the orthopedic nurses and hospital administrators,
who feared and distrusted his quick temper and
sharp tongue:
Not only that, but I find his filthy mouth very
offensive. I am not going to cooperate with
324
PART 3
HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
him when he behaves like that. Nobody else
talks to me that way and gets away with it.
Nobody, I won’t put up with it. As long as he
behaves that way, it is a waste of time to meet
with him. I am sure that I am doing things that
bother him, and I want the OR to run as
smoothly as possible. But there is no way we
can deal with these problems unless we can
sit down and talk about them without being
abusive.
Clearly, both Mary and Don had strong needs
to control other people’s behavior, while remaining
free of control themselves. It is significant that
each used the word abuse to describe the other’s
behavior. They did respect each other’s technical
abilities, but morally, Mary saw Don as “an egotistical jerk,” and he saw her as a “rigid, petty tyrant.”
Neither trusted the other, thus, each was inclined
to misconstrue even unintentionally negative
comments—an especially disastrous state of
affairs in the gossipy environment at Lincoln,
where surgeons, nurses, and administrators were
quick to relay, and amplify, the signals of hostility.
It was obvious from these initial interviews
that Don and Mary were largely contributing to
the OR problems; but it was also obvious that
many others had a stake in the outcome of their
battle. I therefore went on to interview the surgical
head nurses, the vice presidents for patient services and medical services, the executive vice
president, the president, and 25 physicians.
The vice presidents and the surgical head
nurses agreed with the president: Mary might not
be the hospital’s most personable manager, but
she was a good one. Her conservative, tenacious,
no-nonsense style had earned the trust of administrators and the respect of OR nurses, as well as
some physicians. As one nurse asserted: “Good
OR managers are hard to find and certainly Lincoln
is far better off with Mary than without her.”
The doctors, in general, supported Don,
though some of them had reservations. At one
extreme, an anesthesiologist began with a classic
disclaimer:
Now, I want you to know that I don’t have any
problems with Mary, personally. In fact, I really
like her. We have been friends for years, and
we get along just great.
Nevertheless, he was convinced the OR problems were “100% Mary’s fault. I have no doubt
about that.” Furthermore, although he claimed to
be, as an anesthesiologist, “a completely neutral
third party in this whole business,” he clearly shared
Don’s assumption that Mary’s job as an OR
manager was to keep the surgeons happy:
Her people hate her. She is a lousy manager.
She just can’t work with the MDs. Surgeons
are a rare breed, and there is no changing
them. You have got to get someone in there
who can work with them and give them what
they want.
His conclusion echoed Don’s: “She ought to
be fired, if for no other reason than to prove that
something is being done to address the problems
in the OR.”
Observation: I am always leery of someone
who says, “It is all her fault.” When someone is blamed for 100% of the problem, it
usually evidences either denial or a coverup.
There may be a completely innocent party in
an emotionally charged conflict, but I have
never met one. Emotionally charged conflicts
are always power struggles, and it takes two
parties to play that game.
A less enthusiastic partisan, a surgeon who was
a ten-year veteran of the Lincoln OR, was very conscious of the way expectations such as those
expressed by Don and the anesthesiologist were apt
to be viewed by others in the medical community:
Quite frankly, I am embarrassed to admit that I
am a surgeon in this town; by doing so, I am
automatically branded as an egotistical dimwit.
With only a few exceptions, those guys are a
group of conceited, narcissistic technicians
who are so caught up with themselves that
they have no clue about what is going on
around them. Some of them are bullies, and
they push the rest of us around because we
don’t have the patient census they do.
His assessment of blame was correspondingly
more moderate than the anesthesiologist’s: “A lot
SELECTED CASES
of people would like you to think that this problem
is one sided, and that Mary is totally responsible
for this mess. But that isn’t true.” And while he
supported Don, whom he described as reasonable
and willing to listen to logic, his principal wish was
to avoid personal involvement: “I am glad he is
fighting this battle. I won’t. The thought of getting
caught between him and Mary scares me to
death.”
This last wish was vividly elaborated by
another surgeon, who also highlighted the general
perception of Mary as a strong personality:
I don’t mess with Mary at all. I’m not stupid.
It’s true that I don’t like some of the things that
she does. Sometimes she is just plain ornery.
But I also am not willing to take her on. In fact,
at this point, I will do whatever she wants,
whenever she wants it. If the other docs are
smart, they won’t mess with her either. They
can talk big in their meetings, but if they have
any sense, they won’t mess with that lady.
She controls too many of the resources I
need to do my job. So far she has been very
helpful, and she has gone out of her way to do
me some favors. I don’t want to mess that up.
I think it is great that Don is willing to take her
on, and I wish him success. That way, if she
wins, it will be him that gets beat up, not me.
The high turnover among OR nurses was a
particularly sore point among the surgeons in general, whose frustration was explained by Don:
I don’t think the administration has a clue as to
how urgent this matter really is. It takes at least
five years for a surgical nurse to gain the
necessary skills to be useful. In the last two
months, we have lost some of the best nurses
I have ever worked with in my life. As a result, I
had to start the training process all over again. It
has seemed like I’ve been working with a group
of student nurses! This turnover has cut my
productivity by more than 50%.
Most of the doctors blamed the high turnover
on the nursing managers’ inability to retain qualified personnel, whereas the managers blamed it
on the doctors’ verbal abuse. And in fact, a significant number of doctors were widely regarded by
some of their peers as well as by the nurses as
325
impatient, intolerant perfectionists who demanded
far more of others than they did of themselves.
From the extended interviews, it was obvious
that while Mary had greater credibility with the
hospital administration and Don had more backing
from the doctors, each had a certain amount of
power over the other’s constituency: Mary controlled the surgeons’ working conditions, while
Don controlled a significant portion of the hospital’s
patient flow. The OR problems could not be
resolved without genuine cooperation from both of
them—especially from Don, who was outside the
formal hierarchy of the hospital and could not be
coerced by the president.
I met again privately with each of them to
determine whether they were honestly committed
to improving their working relationship. Both were
skeptical about the possibility of real change but
said they were willing to do everything they could
to help, as long as their own basic values were not
violated. Each defined the kind of help he or she
was willing to accept from me and the circumstances under which that help was to be given.
INTERVENTION
Only at this point did actual third-party facilitation
intervention begin. I used a design that included
perception sharing, problem identification, contracting, and follow-up meetings. At their first formal meeting together with me and the three vice
presidents who acted as observers, Mary and Don
began by writing answers to three questions:
1. What does he or she do well?
2. What do I think I do that bugs him or her?
3. What does he or she do that bugs me?
The very process of writing things down was
helpful. It gave them time to get used to this
explicitly confrontational situation before either of
them had a chance to “pop off” at the other, and
it forced an element of rationality into an emotionally charged situation. Also, the questions required
specific answers concerning behaviors, not subjective generalizations about personalities. Listing
specific behaviors made each of them realize that
at least some of the things they disliked about the
other could be changed.
They then explained these responses orally, in
the order shown in Figure 1. Because of their
PART 3
HUMAN PROCESS INTERVENTIONS
FIGURE 1
Participant Responses to Three Questions in the Third-Party Facilitation Model
1. What does Mary admire about Don and think he does well?
• He is very concerned about patient care.
• I admire him for his skills as a surgeon. I would have no problem sending a member of
my family to him.
• He is interested and wants to work out issues that we have with each other.
• He can be very gentle and considerate at times.
• He is well respected for his skills by his peers and by the OR nursing staff.
2. What does Don admire about Mary and think that she does well?
• She is honest in her work.
• She has met my needs in orthopedics in getting us the instruments and equipment
we need.
• She has a lot of external pressures on her and she has handled them well.
• She deals well with the various groups that are pulling at her: patients, staff,
administration, physicians.
• She manages the overall picture very well in the OR.
3. What does Don think he does that bugs Mary?
• I am impatient. (Mary agrees)
• I am demanding of personnel in surgery, but everyone can’t always get what they want,
when they want it. (Mary disagrees)
• She is uncertain as to how much I am willing to support her this coming year.
(Mary agrees)
• I am not the best listener. (Mary agrees)
4. What does Mary think she does that bugs Don?
• I don’t listen to him. (Don agrees)
• I appear defensive at times. (Don agrees)
• I respond to some directives in a very detailed manner. (Don agrees)
5. What does Mary do that bugs Don?
• She is difficult to communicate with. I can talk to her, but I am not sure that she is listening.
• She doesn’t assume the responsibility for some specific problems, such as not being
able to do an operation without a full set of prosthesis available.
• She doesn’t effectively manage the personnel that she supervises in OR. Specifically,
there is a great deal of disruption going on. And there are also morale problems,
particularly as they relate to their trust of her and her trust of them in the OR.
6. What does Don do that bugs Mary?
• He generalizes and is not very specific with examples, even when questioned.
• The staff labels him as a whiner, in terms of “nothing is ever right,” his complaining, etc.
This also relates to laying out problems and then walking away.
• He sometimes says one thing but means another—and gives mixed messages.
An explanation of this is my asking him how things are going, he says fine, but
then I find out that he has problems later in the day.
• I do not feel a full measure of support from him, and that bugs me.
• He doesn’t always listen to my concerns.
© Cengage Learning 2015
326
SELECTED CASES
mutual hostility, I thought it safer to require that at
first they address their remarks only to the third
party, not to each other. Each, however, was
required to hear the other’s presentation so each
would understand the other’s perceptions. And
because both were guaranteed an uninterrupted
speech, each was more likely to listen to the
other. Taking up the positive perceptions first
helped. As Don later explained:
I was stunned to hear her say those positive
things, particularly the part about me taking
care of her family. For a long time, I had seen
her as my enemy, and I expected only the
worst. I was amazed that she had so much
respect for me. As a result, many of my negative feelings for her began to leave. It is really
tough to stay angry at someone who says so
many nice things about you. I also found that
I was much more willing to listen to what I do
that bugs her. Somehow, criticism is always
easier to take when it is accompanied by
something positive.
It also helped that before making any accusations against each other, they were required to
examine their own behavior. As Mary acknowledged, neither had ever taken the time to figure
out specifically how he or she might be causing
problems for the other:
It had never really occurred to me that I may
be doing something that caused Don to react
that way. Vaguely, I suspected that I may be
doing something that he didn’t like, but I was
hard pressed to identify what it was. I really
had to stand back and say to myself, “What
is it that I am doing that is making this working relationship go sour?” I had spent so
much time concentrating on what he
was doing that bugged me that I hadn’t
looked at myself.
The oral discussion of this question made it
obvious that neither was intentionally causing
problems for the other, making both parties less
hypersensitive to imaginary insults. Also, because
both were much harder on themselves than they
were on each other, the milder criticisms they did
subsequently direct at each other were not nearly
as offensive as they would otherwise have been.
327
The next step was to identify specific problems for Mary and Don to address. They wrote
their responses to question three on a sheet of
newsprint, assigning vectors to represent the relative seriousness of the problem. Some of the most
serious problems could be resolved immediately;
others were going to take longer, but at least Don
and Mary now knew what their priorities had to be.
Finally, it became possible for them to agree
on specific behavioral changes that might help.
Don and Mary each defined what they wanted
from the other and negotiated what they themselves were willing to undertake; I moderated the
meeting and wrote down the decisions. (At the
end of the meeting, Don, Mary, and the three
observers each received a copy of these
commitments.) Because Mary and Don were interdependent, either could easily have sabotaged the
other’s efforts. Therefore, in defining each action
item, I reminded them to specify responsibilities
for both parties:
• What will Don (Mary) do to resolve this
problem?
• What will Mary (Don) do to help the other
succeed?
This technique made both parties jointly
responsible for resolving each problem and thus
changed the whole dynamic of the relationship—
from mutual isolation to collaboration, from denial
of responsibility to acceptance of responsibility,
and from a focus on problems to a focus on
solutions.
During the next year, I had four more meetings
with Don, Mary, and the three vice presidents.
Before each meeting, I interviewed each participant privately. At the beginning of each meeting,
the participants gave general reports on what was
going on, between Mary and Don and in the OR in
general. In particular, I asked the two to list positive
events and specific behaviors on each other’s part
that they appreciated. They then reviewed the
commitments they had made during the previous
meeting. In almost every case, both Mary and Don
had kept these commitments, thus building a basis
of trust for further commitments during the latter
part of the meeting. Where they had not kept the
commitments, plans were made to ensure followthrough before the next meeting.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
