You must identify two different business/management topics within that company. The topics are to be chosen from the weekly session titles on this module. For example, Motivation, Diversity, Leadershi

Assignment Brief

Module Code and Title	MGT4A7 Peaple and organisation
Assignment Number & Title	Assessment 1: Individual Report
Assessment Type (e.g. Presentation, Essay, Report etc.)	Report
Weighting of assessment (%TMM)	100
Assessment Learning Outcomes	Understand the key issues relating to people within business and non-commercial organisations. Identify the challenges faced by managers seeking to influence the behaviour of their employees. Appreciate the relationship between organisational behaviour and Human Resource Management. Describe the major competing approaches to people management in modern organisations. Use personal research to inform your work and base your decisions on evidence not speculation.
Module Leader	Karine Mangion
Internal Reviewer
External Examiner
Submission Details
Submission Deadline	0/07/2020
Release of Feedback

Completing Your Assignment

What am I required to do in this assignment?

Task:

Write a report describing and analysing a current business topic on a selection of people management aspects and issues within a company of your choice. (Subject to approval by the seminar tutor).

You must identify two different business/management topics within that company. The topics are to be chosen from the weekly session titles on this module. For example, Motivation, Diversity, Leadership, Change Management etc. You can pick any topic from semester one and two.

The company and the topics must be approved by the seminar tutor, who has the final say over which companies to use. It may be possible to combine different aspects but check with your tutor. Tesco, Whitbread, South west Airlines and John Lewis are barred as companies that you can choose.

For each topic, you are expected to incorporate at least one appropriate theory/model or recognised practice. For example, for Motivation you could include Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. For Leadership, you can use Theory X and Y etc.

In your conclusion, you are to include at least two recommendation as to how might the company/industry etc. improve the situation in the future.

The Topic/title:

The title needs to be agreed by the seminar tutor.
Feel free to discuss possibilities with colleagues and your lecturer. It’s usually best to research a company and study the one that offers most information about internal HR policies and management practices.
‘Describe’ means ‘this is what happened’, ‘Analyse’ means ‘this is why it happened’.
Recommendations could relate to the future, or to what others could learn from this situation.

Basic Format:

A title page, a contents page, an introduction, a main section with sub-sections, and a recommendation, conclusion and references. Clear headings are essential. Relevant sources of information should be cited using the Harvard referencing system (see the Study Skills section on Blackboard for details).

Is there a size limit?

Length: 2000 words +/- 10% not including contents, appendices or list of references.

What do I need to do to pass?

Threshold criteria i.e. achievement of the learning outcome at the pass/fail boundary

Criteria / marks	Threshold pass
Content: Quantity, variety, quality of information 20%	Sufficient quantity and variety to make insights into the topic, some sources may be unreliable. No grossly flawed statements, perhaps some statements are flawed in a minor way
Content: Critical thinking; Objectivity 25%	Demonstrates a basic ability to think objectively, questions some sources to a basic level, many sources still accepted on face value. Some very basic synthesis of ideas.
Content: Application of theory 30%	Major flaws in either understanding of the theory or the context may be present, but not both
Format and structure 15%	Basic elements are in place, the reader can find a way through the work but with some difficulty.
Referencing 10%	Identifiable references linking effectively to citations, appropriately (i.e. all and any ideas which are not from the student must be acknowledged). Limited range and quality of sources.

How do I produce high quality work that merits a 70% or above grade?

Criteria / marks	70% and above
Content: Quantity, variety, quality of information 20%	Very wide and deep range of information, reliable sources, statements are entirely without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others
Content: Critical thinking; Objectivity 25%	Is entirely objective (except where applicable, extremely well supported assertions) Questions the sources automatically, demonstrates fluency in the topic. Synthesizes extremely effectively
Content: Application of theory 30%	Application of theory demonstrates excellent understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied
Format and structure 15%	Conforms perfectly to the requirements laid out, all elements in place and all very good quality, looks very professional
Referencing 10%	Every idea not coming from the student is effectively referenced and cited; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a very comprehensive understanding of the field

How does assignment relate to what we are doing in the scheduled sessions?

The relevant theories and examples of application with real life cases are discussed in term 1 and 2 during face-to-face and online classes, in preparation for your assignment.

How will I receive formative feedback for this assignment?

Submit your report for formative feedback by Friday 19 June, 23.59 via Turnitin. Feedback will be provided via Turnitin within two weeks.

Online drop-in sessions: available on a weekly basis during the term and held on Skype for Business on Thursdays 9-10am (username: Karine Mangion, [email protected])

Marks and Feedback

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations above and the marking criteria below. You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit.

Marking Criteria Table

Criteria / marks	Below 40	40-49 threshold pass	50-59	60-69	70 and above
Content: Quantity, variety, quality of information 20%	Poor quantity and variety of information, unreliable sources, lack of breadth and depth. Statements are flawed e.g. unsupportable, illogical, inconsistent with others	Sufficient quantity and variety to make insights into the topic, some sources may be unreliable. No grossly flawed statements, perhaps some statements are flawed in a minor way	Fairly wide and deep range of information, fairly reliable sources, statements are usually without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others	Wide and deep range of information, mostly reliable sources, statements are mostly without flaws, mostly supported, mostly logical, mostly consistent with others	Very wide and deep range of information, reliable sources, statements are entirely without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others
Content: Critical thinking; Objectivity 25%	Is entirely subjective, questions nothing, demonstrates little or no interest in going deeper. Little or no synthesis of ideas or sources	Demonstrates a basic ability to think objectively, questions some sources to a basic level, many sources still accepted on face value. Some very basic synthesis of ideas.	Demonstrates a fair ability to think objectively, not many sources are unquestioned, few are accepted at face value. Synthesis is a familiar concept	Demonstrates a very good ability to think objectively, most sources are questioned appropriately, only a few are accepted at face value. Synthesis is a very familiar concept	Is entirely objective (except where applicable, extremely well supported assertions) Questions the sources automatically, demonstrates fluency in the topic. Synthesizes extremely effectively
Content: Application of theory 30%	Application of theory demonstrates little or no understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied	Major flaws in either understanding of the theory or the context may be present, but not both	No major flaws in understanding of the theory or the context, one or two minor flaws may be present. Demonstrates good understanding of the theory	No major flaws in understanding of the theory or the context, very few, very minor flaws may be present. Demonstrates very good understanding of the theory	Application of theory demonstrates excellent understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied
Format and structure 15%	Significant elements missing e.g. no title + no contents + no headings + no author / date. Looks very unprofessional.	Basic elements are in place, the reader can find a way through the work but with some difficulty.	All basic elements in place, minor lapses are permitted, looks marginally professional	All basic elements in place, few lapses in other elements, looks fairly professional	Conforms perfectly to the requirements laid out, all elements in place and all very good quality, looks very professional
Referencing 10%	Poor or no references or citations	Identifiable references linking effectively to citations, appropriately (i.e. all and any ideas which are not from the student must be acknowledged). Limited range and quality of sources.	Identifiable references link well to citations. Range of quality and variety of sources demonstrates some understanding of the field.	Most ideas from sources are effectively referenced and cited on the whole; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a good understanding of the field	Every idea not coming from the student is effectively referenced and cited; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a very comprehensive understanding of the field

Regent’s University Generic Descriptors

Band	Conversion scale for UG Programmes	Conversion scale for PG Programmes	Generic descriptors
8	90 - 100	90 - 100	All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an exceptionally high standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment task is presentable in a professional context and may extend practical or theoretical knowledge in the field. It displays an exceptionally high level of understanding, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an exceptionally high standard.
7	80 - 89	80 - 89	All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an outstanding standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an outstanding display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study). Connections are developed both within and beyond the task set. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an outstanding standard.
6	70 - 79	70 - 79	All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to high standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an excellent display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to an excellent standard.
5	60 - 69	60 - 69	All learning outcomes have been achieved at a good and some to a very good standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a very good level of understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, reflection, criticality, some insight and/or very good research (according to the level of study), and connections are established within the task set, and in some cases reaching beyond. The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to a very good standard.
4	50 - 59	55 - 59	Most learning outcomes have been met at a good standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a good understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, and some reflection, criticality and/or appropriate research. (According to the level of study) The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be appropriately developed.
3	40 - 49	50 - 54	All learning outcomes have been met to a minimum satisfactory standard (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment shows an adequate understanding, of major ideas, with little insight and basic research. Limited level of analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study). The outcome of the task shows ability to paraphrase concepts and theories, with limited ability to make connections. The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.
2	30 - 39	36 - 49	Most learning outcomes have almost been met, whilst the rest have not (according to the level of study). The outcome of the assessment shows a limited understanding of major ideas, with little insight, very basic research, and very limited ability to make connections. No analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study) The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.
1	11 – 29	21 – 35	The majority of the learning outcomes have not been met (according to the Level). The outcome of the assessment task is incomplete, flawed, very limited and/or presents significant inaccuracies. The outcome of the assessment shows very limited understanding with no insight, and very limited ability to make connections within basic ideas in the field, very fragmented. Lacks research. No analysis, reflection or criticality (according to the level of study) The work is disorganised, and unstructured. Presentation is barely adequate.
0	0 - 10	0 - 20	None of the learning outcomes have been met. The task has not been addressed by the student, or there is no assessable task. The outcome of the assessment shows no understanding of basic ideas, with no insight and shows no ability to make connections within basic ideas in the field, or the connections are completely irrelevant. Lacks research. No understanding, analysis, reflection nor criticality. The work completely lacks organisation and structure. Presentation is completely inadequate.