Leading & Managing People

Share

                         Coursework Information Sheet

To be supplied to students when they receive the coursework assignment task.

Unit Name:  Leading and Managing People
Unit Code:  SHR012-6

Task:

Formulate a critical and constructive response to this manager in the form of a carefully considered e-mail (no more than 1,400 words) on ONE of the following topics (incorporating evidence-based argument to support your views and to advise what it all means):

  • flexibility and the psychological contract;
  • team-working;
  • ethics and social responsibility;
  • managing organizational change;
  • managing a diverse workforce.

                                      Assignment Guidance

Section / Title Details / Guidance
University Cover sheet Include name, student ID number, unit title and code, assessment title, date of submission.
Title page Title of e-mail.  Address (to/from) and date the e-mail.
Introduction

(around 200 words)

Short introduction to the discussion initially clarifying why Leading and Managing People is a relevant unit to study and also identifying the topic you intend to discuss in making the business case for this assignment.
  Discussion of topic

(around 1000 words)

Provide a detailed and critical discussion of the topic chosen.  Ensure you define the area clearly and include relevant academic literature, theories and current thinking about the topic. Evaluate the merits and disadvantages of this topic area to a business and specifically to the manager. How well does it work and what causes it to go wrong? Citations from or references to research and/or other sources of evidence is expected.  It will also be useful to include examples of this topic in action in current organizations to show how knowledge about leadership and management has been systematically applied to improve individual and corporate outcomes. You may also wish to challenge the manager’s view that there are no ‘right’ answers in the people leadership/management arena: even if the answers aren’t absolutely ‘right’, are there some answers which are better than others?
Conclusion and recommendations

(around 200 words) 

Summarise the main findings from your discussion and make your final suggestions to this manager.
Reference List A list of the third-party sources you have consulted and which are cited directly in the text.  All these sources should be properly identified.  Harvard style (see the Learning Resources website: lrweb.beds.ac.uk/help/guide-to-ref).
Appendices No appendices are necessary
Word Limit 1,400 words +/- 10%
Submission You should submit your report electronically via BREO Assignments on-line. Please submit in PDF or word document format.
Assessment Criteria As illustrated below
Good Academic Practice Please see appendix A at the end of this brief for guidance on this issue.

Marking Guidelines

Mark Band: 70-100% (Outstanding/Excellent)

Knowledge

Knowledge of the subject matter concerning the chosen topic area, both the theoretical/academic literature and the illustrative cases is demonstrably comprehensive. The reader can be confident that this student ‘knows his/her stuff’, with a judicious mix of factual knowledge and critical evaluation.

Understanding

Comprehensive analysis of a range of related concepts and ideas. Evidence based argument demonstrating an excellent understanding of theory and/or organizational practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief supported by citations from an extensive range of appropriate up to date third party sources, research and relevant literature.

Persuasion

Concepts expressed with exceptional clarity in a convincing and cogent manner. Sensitive to emotional, attitudinal and political aspects of corporate life. Third-party sources are properly described, and the logic of the argument throughout the discussion is strongly persuasive.

Presentation

The discussion presented is produced in strict conformity with the guidelines contained in the assignment brief. The text is wide-ranging, the style mature, the approach measured, the presentation reader-friendly.

Mark Band: 60-69% (Commendable)

Knowledge

The discussion exhibits quite a good understanding of the chosen topic area from both the theoretical and applied perspectives. The submission is liberally supplied with references to and citations from authoritative third-party sources.

Understanding

Good analysis of related concepts and ideas. Appropriate evidence based argument demonstrating good understanding of theory and/or organizational practice.  Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief reinforced by citations from an appropriate and broad range of third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Persuasion

The issues of the chosen topic and concepts are clearly and concisely expressed and the subtleties concerning its operation in practice are discussed in an appropriately logical, confident and persuasive manner.

Presentation

The overall presentation of the discussion is articulate, lucid, structurally sensible and mature in expression. The references are organized conscientiously and comprehensively.

Mark Band: 50-59% (Good Pass)

Knowledge

Some of the essential literature and research sources on the chosen topic area have been consulted and are referenced throughout the discussion. Occasionally the student relies upon some low-level citations; some third-party material may even be quoted without question. The discussion appears quite strong on description and narrative but needs more evaluation and critique.

Understanding

Satisfactory analysis of some appropriate concepts. Some evidence based argument demonstrated which draws on theory and/or organizational practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief reinforced by citations from an appropriate, but limited, range of third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Persuasion

Concepts expressed in a clear and systematic manner however there is scope to make the discussion even more persuasive.

Presentation

Though the discussion presented is generally systematic, there are improvements that the student should have implemented, for example, over-long and discursive paragraphs or too short and fragmented paragraphs which render some pages un-reader-friendly.

Mark Band: 40-49% (Satisfactory Pass)

Knowledge

Limited range of literature and research sources on the chosen topic area has been consulted and is referenced throughout the discussion. There is over-reliance on low-level citations and third-party material may even be quoted without question. The discussion appears reasonable enough on description and narrative but needs a more developed approach to establish a good evaluative argument.

Understanding

Limited analysis. Lacks enough evidence based argument. Limited reference to theory and/or organizational practice or used inappropriately. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief insufficiently reinforced by citations from appropriate third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Persuasion

Limited expression of concepts clearly, systematically and/or confidently. There is scope to make the discussions more logical and coherent to persuade much more.

Presentation 

Though the discussion presented is reasonably systematic, there are improvements that the student should have implemented, for example, over-long and discursive sections/paragraphs or too short and fragmented sections/paragraphs which render some pages un-reader- friendly. There is scope for the work to be better organized.

Mark Bands: 35-39% (Marginal Fail); 1-34% (Fail)

Knowledge

There is little evidence that the student has undertaken any serious study about the chosen topic area. Instead, the discussion presented relies upon a very limited number of largely low-level, descriptive and narrative sources which are presented uncritically. There may be elementary errors and omissions.

Understanding

Inadequate or no analysis. Lacks evidence based argument. Insufficient reference to theory and/or organizational practice or used inappropriately. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief not reinforced by citations from any appropriate third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Persuasion

Fails to express concepts clearly, systematically and/or confidently. The work is insufficiently persuasive and does not reflect robust understanding of how the chosen topic works in practice and makes a contribution to organizational life.

Presentation

The structure of the discussion presented is unacceptable, as it deviates from the model presented in the assignment brief yet does so without any attempt to persuade the reader that such deviations might be legitimate. Section headings are not used, or do not reflect the contents beneath; the references are confused or omitted. There is scope for the work to be better organize.

Appendix A – Guidance on academic practice

  1. Good academic practice

Good academic practice is the use of ideas, research findings and text by a learner in ways that recognise where these represent the knowledge of others. It is important because it enables learners:

  • To demonstrate their breadth of reading by identifying and comparing their sources of information;
  • To demonstrate an individual understanding of their findings as they learn, by using their words to describe and interpret the ideas of others;
  • To develop their own originality by synthesizing, commenting on and structuring their argument around the contributions of others;
  • To apply their reading and their understanding to a range of subjects and situations in ways that make clear their process and their conclusions.

To do this, learners are required to:

Recognise the origins of ideas and of statements, where these are not theirs, to recognise the difference between the two, and to deal with each appropriately within their own work.

  • Report accurately the findings of their research (primary and secondary)
  • Submit work for assessment that represents their individual and independent effort unless otherwise advised in the assessment brief.
  • Doing this is good academic practice.

Referencing systems are used to identify where a writer is using the ideas and words of others. They ensure that both writer and reader are able to distinguish accurately between a learner’s own ideas, their interpretation of the ideas and words of others, and their direct use of the ideas and words of others in their own work.

  1. Academic practice and learning

The University encourages its learners to demonstrate their reading and their research by making appropriate reference in their work to the ideas and words of others.

  • It requires learners to use a referencing system (see http://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/guides/referencing), and it expects learners to use this system fully and accurately as a way of making clear to readers where the ideas and words of others have been used.
  • It recognises that learners need to develop their use of referencing systems as part of their learning process, within the subject area(s) they are studying.
  • It also recognises that the importance of acknowledging the ideas and words of others as a requirement of good academic practice is new to some of its learners.

In this context, the University outlines the responsibilities of learners as follows.

  1. The responsibilities of learners
  • To identify accurately where they have used in their work the words and/or ideas of others.
  • To use referencing systems accurately in that identification.
  • To avoid practices that may give rise to academic concern and/or suspicion of academic offence.
  • To read this policy, and to attend and make use of the guidance and support offered at induction (or the additional/replacement guidance and support sessions offered for late arriving students).
  • To make use of the further guidance and support offered at each study stage in advance of the first deadline for submitted work.
  • To seek assistance if they are, for any reason, unable to take advantage of the standard guidance and support offered.
  • To complete and sign the assignment coversheet for each piece of work submitted, confirming that they understand this policy and its requirements
  • To take full responsibility for work that is submitted in their name
  • To bring to the attention of an invigilator any circumstance or event that might be evidence of, or suggest, a breach of academic discipline.