BMO0270 Individual Report

ASSESSMENT:  BMO0270 Individual Report

 

Module Code: BMO0270
Module Title: Managing Employee Relations
Assessment Type Individual report

 

Assessment Task 
Critically evaluate how employment relations policies and practices in an organisation with which you are familiar have impacted on organisational outcomes such as organisational performance and employee engagement.

 

Task specific guidance:

 

In your report you should comment on the following:

 

·        The climate and impact of the organisational context shaping the employment relationship, including the impact of any local, national and global contexts shaping the employment relations climate

·        Critically evaluate the impact of the different roles controlling and managing the employment relationship

·        Provide examples and critique of policies and practices that have had either a positive or negative impact on organisational performance and engagement. Including discussion and evaluation of the design and implementation of policies and practices in the areas of discipline, grievance, dismissal and redundancy.

·        Make appropriate recommendations based on your findings

·        Your assignment should be presented as a business report, it should be referenced with academic and professional / practitioner sources

·        Avoid description of the content of material referred to – critical evaluation is required where specified.

 

General study guidance:

 

·        Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.

 

·        Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style.  For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

o   APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

 

  • The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at

 

·        If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

·        Do not exceed the word / time / other limit.

 

 

Assessment criteria
 

  • The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document.  Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work.  These criteria have been designed for your level of study.

 

  • These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
  • The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria.  To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on

 

 

Learning Outcomes
 

This section is for information only.

 

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

 

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

 

1.   Demonstrate a critical understanding of perspectives on employment relations in diverse organisational contexts

2.   Critically evaluate the roles and functions of the different parties to control and manage the employment relationship

3.   Understand, analyse and critically evaluate the integration of employment relations processes and how they can be used strategically to impact on policy, practice and organisational outcomes such as performance and employee engagement

4.   Be able to critically evaluate the importance of organisational-level employment relations processes that support organisational performance, including the design and implementation of policies and practices in the areas of: employee engagement; diversity management control.

5.   Be able to understand, analyse and critically evaluate the importance of employment relations procedures that help mitigate organisational risk, including the design and implementation of policies and practices in the areas of discipline, grievance, dismissal and redundancy.

 

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

 

Submission information
Word Limit: 2,500 words (excluding references / appendices / titles)
Submission Date: 28/05/21
Feedback Date: 21/06/2021
Submission Time: 15.00
Submission Method: Electronically via module site in Brightspace.  Paper/hard copy submissions are not required.  For technical support, please contact:

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 PGT Assessment Criteria

 

These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed.  They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.

 

Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

 

The grades between Pass and Merit should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The higher-level categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the basic requirement, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

 

PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

 

  Unacceptable Unsatisfactory Pass Merit Distinction
0 – 9 10-19 20-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes Not met or minimal Not met or minimal Not met or partially met Not met or partially met Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Response to the question /task No response Little response Insufficient response Adequate response, but with limitations Adequate response Secure response to assessment task Very good response to topic; elements of sophistication Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity

 

PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

Please select the criteria which most appropriately match the requirement of the assessment task.

 

  Unacceptable

A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability

Unsatisfactory

Some knowledge of core material but limited.

Pass

A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles

Merit

A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation

Distinction

An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability

 

  0-9 10-19 20-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary / seminal knowledge in the subject Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding Typically, only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts Marginally insufficient. Adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment A systematic understanding of knowledge; critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights; can evaluate critically current research and can evaluate methodologies Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake Research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence Excellent. Displays (for example): high levels of accuracy; evidence of the potential to undertake research; the ability to analyse primary sources critically. Insightful. Displays (for example): excellent research potential; flexibility of thought; possibly of publishable quality. Striking and insightful. Displays (for example): publishable quality; outstanding research potential; originality and independent thought; ability to make informed judgements.
Presentation Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language Good standard of presentation; length requirement met, and academic conventions followed Very good standards of presentation Professional standards of presentation Highest professional standards of presentation
Use of evidence and sources to support task Some irrelevant and/or out of date

Sources

Some irrelevant and/or out of date

Sources

Some irrelevant and/or out of date

Sources

Limited sources Comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship

 

Complex work and

concepts presented,

key texts used

effectively

Full range of sources

used selectively to

support argument

 

Full range of sources

used selectively to

support argument

 

Full range of sources

used selectively to

support argument

 

Development of ideas Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent Argument not fully

developed and may lack structure

The argument is developed

but may lack fluency

 

Argument concise and

explicit

 

Coherent and compelling

argument well presented

 

Coherent and compelling

argument well presented

 

Coherent and compelling

argument well presented