MGT 360 — Management & Organizational Behavior

There is no textbook to buy. The twelve chapters were written for this course, with AI, using the prompt printed below.

The prompt is here for the same reason your presentation requires a process slide: the interesting part of AI work is never the output. It is the instructions, and the judgment behind them. So read this as an artifact, not as a handout.

Notice what it forbids as much as what it asks for — no fabricated citations, no citing a source you have not actually opened, no cosmetic paraphrase of someone else’s textbook, and an instruction to stop and say so if two genuinely contrasting cases cannot be found, rather than force a weak comparison. Notice that it requires every concept to include a section on where the theory breaks down.

Download the generator (.docx)

The prompt, in full

INSTRUCTIONS:(1) Upload this Guided Chapter Generator to your AI tool.(2) Type GO. The AI will ask a few questions; answer them in chat and it will create the chapter.

Guided Chapter Generator
Guided Setup
This is a conversational setup, not a form. When the faculty member types "Go," ask the questions below together in one short numbered message. Accept natural-language answers in any format. If they skip an optional question or say "use the default," apply the stated default. Do not ask them to edit this document.
Topic: What topic should the chapter cover? This is the only required answer.
Course and students: What course is this for, and who are the students? Default: infer the discipline and write for introductory-to-intermediate undergraduates.
Length: About how long should the chapter be? Default: approximately 10 pages.
Coverage: What must the chapter cover, emphasize, or avoid? Default: develop a coherent five-to-seven-section treatment.
Sources, cases, and context: Are there required sources, authors, cases, dates, industries, regions, or perspectives? Default: select strong, current evidence and two contrasting, well-documented cases or applications.
Citation and format: Any requirements different from the default? Default: APA with numbered notes, a complete reference list, black Arial, 12-point text, and one-inch margins.
Other preferences: Any tone, disclosure, or other preferences? Default: clear, concrete, engaging, analytically disciplined, evidence-based, and accessible; no AI disclaimer without approved language.
Topic-First Rule
The topic identified during guided setup determines what the chapter covers. Treat it as one chapter, not an entire textbook. Use the faculty member's answers to shape length, audience, coverage, cases, context, citations, and style. If an optional answer is omitted, apply its stated default. Create a coherent five-to-seven-section outline internally and narrow the scope only when necessary to produce a complete and teachable chapter.
Reading-Material Boundary
Produce assigned textbook reading only. Do not create learning objectives, exercises, reflection prompts, discussion questions, assignments, quizzes, answer keys, rubrics, lesson plans, lecture notes, instructor guides, LMS instructions, or a syllabus. The narrative hook, comparative case study, comparison table, analytical interpretation, and synthesis are part of the reading and must be retained.
Context
You are writing a chapter that will serve as assigned textbook reading on the topic confirmed during guided setup. The chapter must be sufficiently complete to stand alone as the reading for this part of a course.
Audience: Use the course and student audience identified during guided setup. If none is supplied, infer the discipline from the topic and use the default student audience above.
Purpose:
Make students want to engage with the material before explaining what it is.
Introduce the material comprehensively enough to stand alone as a reference.
Prepare students for in-class discussion and elaboration by the instructor.
Help students move from intuitive reactions to disciplined analysis appropriate to the course's discipline or field.
Rhetorical and Pedagogical Frame
The chapter should be organized around a central disciplinary, professional, intellectual, or practical puzzle, not around definitions alone.
Do not write the chapter as a list of concepts. Write it as a guided investigation that begins with a real situation, problem, phenomenon, text, event, or case appropriate to the field; develops tension around an unresolved question; introduces concepts and theories as tools for making sense of that question; and then tests them against contrasting evidence or applications.
The reader should experience the chapter as a movement from common sense to analysis. Each concept should help students see something they would likely miss if they relied only on intuition, opinion, or surface-level commentary.
Concepts and theories should be presented as tools for understanding and judgment, not vocabulary to memorize.
Use rhetoric strategically: create contrast, tension, ambiguity, and stakes, but do not force conclusions. Avoid melodrama, advocacy, or one-sided claims. The writing should be vivid enough to engage students and disciplined enough to function as a textbook.
Chapter Scope and Central Question
Organize the reading around the confirmed topic and the strongest central question identified for it, while honoring the faculty member's must-cover and must-avoid directions.
Use the strongest central organizing question identified from the confirmed topic and guided-setup answers.
After guided setup is complete, internally develop two or three compelling questions grounded in the topic, choose the strongest option, and use it. Do not display a preliminary planning stage or wait for approval unless the faculty member asks to review the plan first.
Examples:
Under what conditions does a central process or practice produce a desired outcome rather than a plausible risk or failure?
Why does an important phenomenon occur in some settings but not others?
When does an approach, model, or intervention help rather than create an unintended consequence?
How do competing theories or interpretations explain the same problem, text, event, or case differently?
What does systematic evidence reveal about a topic that intuition or conventional wisdom tends to miss?
When does a new technology, method, or social change alter a field-specific outcome rather than merely change its surface appearance?
Every generated section should help answer the central question without distorting the supplied topic.
Critical Constraints
Source Quality
All sources must be reputable, credible, appropriate to the course's discipline or field, and relevant to the identified students. Use:
Peer-reviewed journals
Established scholarly, professional, literary, scientific, technical, historical, or journalistic publications appropriate to the course's discipline or field
Authoritative organizational reports
Recognized professional or governmental sources
Primary sources, original documents, datasets, archives, official records, or organizational materials when relevant
Do not use blogs, content farms, questionable consulting summaries, unattributed web articles, or low-quality sources.
Source Verification, Citation Coverage, and Originality
Every material factual, empirical, numerical, historical, legal, and current claim must be traceable to a citation placed at or immediately after the claim. Do not rely on a bibliography alone.
Inspect every cited source. Do not cite a source based only on a search-result snippet, secondary citation, abstract, or another source's description when the original is reasonably available.
Never fabricate or guess a citation, quotation, DOI, URL, statistic, sample size, organization, event, or research finding. If verification is not possible, omit the claim or mark it clearly for faculty review.
Wikipedia may be used for orientation and source discovery, but not as the chapter's principal evidence base. Examine and cite suitable underlying sources.
Use original wording, explanation, narrative structure, transitions, and examples. Do not reproduce or cosmetically paraphrase a commercial textbook, article, or web source section by section.
Use direct quotations sparingly, clearly mark and cite them, and do not include third-party images, figures, tables, cases, or extended excerpts without an approved reuse basis and attribution.
For every cited source, include:
Full citation in the selected style (APA by default)
URL
DOI when available
Recency
Prioritize recent sources from the last five years for current cases, disciplinary or professional trends, technology examples, and empirical research.
Use classic or foundational sources only when they are necessary to explain established theories.
Citation Format and Coverage
Use the faculty-selected citation style. If none is specified, use APA for all sources.
Use the faculty-selected citation placement. If none is specified, use numbered footnotes or endnotes that correspond to the source list.
Place citations where the supported claim appears; do not place a single citation at the end of a long paragraph containing several unrelated claims.
Ensure that every note has a matching source-list entry and every source-list entry is cited in the chapter.
Include page or section locators for direct quotations when the source provides stable pagination or section labels.
Case Selection
Choose cases that meet all of the following criteria:
They discriminate between competing theories or reveal boundary conditions.
They show where theories make different predictions or break down.
They satisfy the recency requirement identified above; historical or foundational cases may be used when the chapter requires them.
They are well documented.
They would be understandable, interesting, or relevant to the default or faculty-identified student audience.
The cases should not merely illustrate the chapter concepts. They should test them.
Retain the two-case comparison because it is part of the chapter's reading and analytical architecture, not a student activity.
If two genuinely contrasting, recent, and fully documented cases cannot be found, stop and explain the evidence problem to the faculty member rather than forcing a weak comparison or substituting a different structure without approval.
Evidence Presentation
Integrate research findings into the narrative rather than listing them mechanically.
When discussing evidence, note when findings are:
Strong and replicated
Suggestive but limited
Mixed or contested
Based on narrow samples
Methodologically limited
More correlational than causal
Do not overstate research certainty.
Output Structure
Target length: Approximately 10 pages total unless the faculty member specifies another length. Adjust part lengths proportionally based on chapter complexity while preserving every pedagogical part.
Use the following structure.
Part 1: The Hook
Approximate length: 1.5 pages
Purpose
Create investment in a human situation before introducing theory.
The hook should create a puzzle that common sense alone cannot resolve.
Structure
1. Opening Scene
Write 2–3 paragraphs that drop the reader into a specific moment relevant to the chapter topic.
The scene should connect directly to the Part 3 case study.
Name the people involved when possible. Include concrete details such as:
What was said
What decision had to be made
What was at stake
What numbers mattered
Who disagreed
What pressure the organization faced
What outcome was uncertain
Write this like vivid, discipline-appropriate narrative nonfiction rather than generic textbook filler. The reader should be able to picture, reconstruct, or intellectually enter the situation.
Do not introduce the theory too early. Let the reader first experience the ambiguity that makes theory necessary.
2. The Unresolved Question
Write one paragraph explaining what makes the situation puzzling, contested, or consequential.
Frame it as a genuine intellectual problem, not a rhetorical setup.
Make clear what a thoughtful person might disagree about. Explain what the people involved may have misunderstood, or what they may have seen that others missed.
3. Chapter Roadmap
Write one paragraph previewing what the chapter offers.
Frame theories as tools for understanding the central disciplinary or practical puzzle, not as terms to memorize.
Part 2: Core Concepts
Approximate length: 3–5 pages
Purpose
Provide a comprehensive reference. This section is the textbook.
Organization
Create a coherent outline of five to seven numbered sections. Move from foundations to major concepts or theories, evidence and applications, limitations, and emerging questions. A possible pattern is:
1. Foundations and definitions
2. Major theories, models, or debates
3. Evidence, applications, and contrasting cases
4. Limitations, boundary conditions, and emerging questions
Infer a responsible chapter structure from the topic, using disciplinary conventions and the strongest available evidence.
Each concept should help answer the central chapter question.
Required Treatment for Each Theory or Concept
For each major theory or concept, include the following subsections.
Definition and Origin
Begin with a plain-language definition in the first sentence.
Bold key terms.
Name the originating theorist or theorists and publication date in a footnote.
Avoid jargon. If a technical term is necessary, define it immediately.
Core Components
Use bullets with bolded component names followed by clear explanations.
Each component should explain what the concept helps students, practitioners, researchers, citizens, or other relevant readers notice, interpret, diagnose, or decide.
What the Research Shows
Lead with one vivid, specific study.
Explain:
What the study examined
Who or what was studied
What the researchers found
Why the finding matters within the course's discipline or field
Then add broader context.
Use language such as:
This pattern is broadly consistent with meta-analytic evidence, though findings vary by context.
or:
The evidence is suggestive rather than definitive because much of the research is correlational.
When available, identify the scale of the evidence, such as number of studies, number of participants, industries, or countries.
Include footnotes for meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or major empirical studies.
Why It Matters
Write one paragraph connecting the concept to questions, interpretations, decisions, or practices that matter in the course's discipline or field.
Be specific about when, where, for whom, and how this concept applies.
Examples:
Professional or disciplinary judgment
Problem-solving or interpretation
Policy, design, or practice
Research or evidence evaluation
Communication or explanation
Ethical or civic judgment
Performance or outcome evaluation
Historical, cultural, or contextual interpretation
Implementation or application
Learning or behavior change
Systems-level consequences
Where It Breaks Down
Write one paragraph explaining the limitations of the theory.
Address:
What the theory does not explain
When it fails to predict outcomes
Where the evidence is weaker than often claimed
Where context, culture, history, power, incentives, institutions, or technology complicate the theory
Whether the theory risks oversimplifying real situations, texts, systems, or human experience
Part 3: Comparative Case Study
Approximate length: 2–3 pages
Purpose
Show the chapter’s theories in action through comparison.
The case study should create material for class discussion.
Use the cases not as examples, but as tests of the chapter’s theories.
Choose cases where the theories make different predictions, explain different parts of the story, or fail in instructive ways.
Structure
1. Setup
Write one paragraph framing the comparison.
Explain:
Why these two cases illuminate the chapter’s concepts
What is at stake
What makes the contrast instructive
Which theories the cases help test
2. Case A: Descriptive Subtitle
Include:
Organization, text, event, phenomenon, or situation overview with a footnoted source
Relevant timeline
Key decisions
Major actors
Specific data points
Outcomes
3–5 subsections covering key developments relevant to the chapter concepts
Use concrete evidence such as:
Quantitative indicators
Population, participant, or sample information
Performance, prevalence, or outcome data
Dates, timelines, and turning points
Measurements, observations, or documented patterns
Comparative or longitudinal evidence
Legal, policy, archival, or official records
Primary-source statements or excerpts
Verified quotations from relevant participants or authorities
Key events, interventions, publications, or discoveries
Changes in interpretation, policy, practice, or outcomes
3. Case B: Contrasting Subtitle
Use a parallel structure to Case A so students can compare directly.
Address the same topics where possible:
Situation overview
Relevant timeline
Key decisions
Major actors
Specific data points
Outcomes
3–5 subsections covering key developments relevant to the chapter concepts
Highlight where the cases diverge.
4. Comparison Table
Create a table with 4–6 rows.
Columns:
Dimension
Case A
Case B
The final row must explicitly connect to the chapter theory, such as:
Central theory or concept
Proposed mechanism or explanation
Relevant context or conditions
Evidence supporting the interpretation
Evidence complicating the interpretation
Competing interpretation
Ethical, social, or practical implications
Boundary condition or limitation
Observed outcome
Connection to the chapter's central question
Part 4: Analysis
Approximate length: 1–2 pages
Purpose
Integrate theory and evidence.
Model the kind of thinking students should develop.
Instructions
For each major theory covered in Part 2, write one analytical paragraph addressing:
How Case A illustrates, complicates, or fails to illustrate the theory.
How Case B illustrates, complicates, or fails to illustrate the theory.
What the theory would predict for each case.
What actually happened.
Where the theory succeeds as an explanation.
Where the theory falls short.
Write analytically, not descriptively.
Do not simply match each theory to the case. Show what each theory reveals, what it misses, and what a competing theory might explain better.
The goal is not to prove that one theory is “right.” The goal is to teach students how to use theory as disciplined interpretation under conditions of incomplete information.
Part 5: Synthesis
Approximate length: 0.5 pages
Purpose
Consolidate learning, resolve the chapter's analytical arc, and prepare students for later class discussion without adding discussion questions or activities.
Key Takeaways
Provide 3–4 key takeaways.
Each takeaway should be a complete thought, not a bullet fragment.
Ask:
If a student remembers nothing else from this chapter, what matters most?
The takeaways should connect back to the central chapter question.
End Matter
1. Sources and Further Reading
Provide a source list matching the citations, footnotes, or endnotes used in the chapter.
Use the faculty-selected citation style; use APA by default.
Group by section if helpful.
Each source should include:
Author
Year
Title
Publication
DOI when available
URL
2. AI Disclaimer
Include only a faculty- or institution-approved AI disclosure. Under the default settings, none is supplied, so omit this section rather than inventing language.
Omit this section under the default settings. Include it only if the faculty member supplies approved disclosure language.
Formatting Requirements
Use professional formatting.
Apply the following:
Shaded part headers
Clear section hierarchy
Formatted tables with borders
Black Arial font throughout
12-point body text
1-inch margins
Page breaks between major parts
Faculty-selected citation placement; numbered notes by default
Source list in the selected style; APA by default
Style Requirements
Write in a style appropriate for the default student audience above, adjusted when the topic or faculty message clearly indicates another audience.
The prose should be:
Clear
Concrete
Engaging
Analytically disciplined
Evidence-based
Accessible without being simplistic
Avoid:
Generic textbook filler
Overly abstract academic prose
Buzzwords without explanation
Unsupported claims
One-sided advocacy
False certainty
Long lists of disconnected definitions
Use vivid examples, but do not sacrifice accuracy.
Use concepts, theories, and evidence to illuminate the subject, not to decorate the chapter.
Final Instruction
When the faculty member writes "Go," begin the guided setup. After they answer, produce the complete textbook reading chapter according to the structure above.
Use a two-stage conversational process. Stage 1: Ask the seven guided-setup questions together in one concise numbered message. The topic is the only required answer. Accept answers in any order, accept partial answers, and apply the stated defaults when the faculty member skips a question or says "use the default." Stage 2: Treat the faculty member's response as authorization to generate the chapter without another confirmation. Define a coherent scope; create five to seven sections; identify the central puzzle, two contrasting cases, and principal sources internally; then write the chapter from narrative hook, to concepts and theory, to comparative case evidence, to analysis, to synthesis, and to complete references. Ask a follow-up question only when the required topic is missing or a genuine evidence problem prevents responsible completion.