Individual report

 

ASSESSMENT: Individual report (Assignment 1)

NB Subject to External Examiner Approval

 

Module Code: BHO0239 2021
Module Title:  Leadership: Process and Organisations in Context
Assessment Type Individual evaluation of a leadership case study

 

Assessment Task  
 

Identify a business leader of your choice (avoiding those on the banned list below or you will automatically fail).

 

Identify two topics (from below) which have been covered within this module, and produce an academic report of 2,000 words (all included). The report should identify areas of good practice and areas that require improvement, concluding with a succinct set of recommendations.

 

Topics Available: Traits Theories; Leadership Skills; Situational Leadership.

 

You must gain tutor approval of the business leader and topics, prior to commencing the research.

 

Format: Individual Report, 2000 words including references.

 

Submission of Report: on Brigthspace, via Turnitin

 

List of banned leaders: Bill Gates; Ren Zhengfei; Donald Trump; Elon Musk;

Howard Schultz; Ingvar Kamprad; Jack Ma; Jeff Bezos; Li Yanhong  (Robin Li); Ma Huateng (Pony Ma); Mark Zuckerberg; Richard Branson; Steve Jobs; Tim Cook; Warren Buffett.

Task specific guidance: 

 

The work must be presented in the form of an academic report using leadership concepts and theories to support your arguments and recommendations.

 

You must aim at an original and critical analysis of the leader of your choice, where you relate the selected theories to concrete leadership examples. You will

 

identify strengths and weaknesses and highlight the potential areas of improvement for your leader.

 

You must draw upon academic journals to support the work with examples of research carried out in the field of leadership and management.

 

You must fully support your discussions with references from a number of sources (both academic and non-academic).

 

The report should present a clear and consistent structure (organised along numbered headings and sub-headings), and include the following sections: executive summary; introduction; main body; recommendations; conclusion; references.

 

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 busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.

 

•       If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. 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 limit. 

 

 

Assessment criteria
 

•       The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document.  The Module Leader 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 busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

 

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.    Evidence an understanding of leadership issues and how the internal and external environments impact upon these;

2.    Appreciate the nature of leadership issues using relevant theories, concepts and practical experiences;

3.    Be able to apply a range of leadership concepts in order to critically analyse and evaluate leadership issues in the context of organisations and contribute to decision making;

4.    Understand the leaders own journey and predisposition, and the importance of the leaders’ own self-awareness.

5.    Identify and effectively communicate leadership issues in relation to the complexities of workplace contexts and managerial/leadership roles;

6.    Evidence self direction and the ability to use theories, concepts and principles in order to critically analyse and evaluate leadership issues and propose solutions;

7.    Make recommendations for the on-going management and leadership of individuals and/or teams in the workplace context.

 

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

 

Submission information
Word/Time Limit: 2000 words (including references)
Submission Date:  9/11/2020
Feedback Date: 1/12//2020
Submission Time:  15:00
Submission Method: Electronically via module site in Brightspace.  Paper/hard copy submissions are not required.  For technical support, please contact:  busvle@hud.ac.uk

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 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 Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module.  The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes Met Met Met Met Met Met Not met or partially met Not met or partially met Not met or minimal Not met or minimal
Response

to the question

/task 

Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity Clear command of

assessment

task; sophisticated approach

Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of

ideas

Secure response to assessment task but not

developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade

Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but

with limitations of development

Nearly a sufficient response but lacks key aspects. Insufficient response Little response No response
        Knowledge and understanding        
Conceptual and critical understand

ing of

contempor

ary

knowledge

in the

subject and

its

limitations

(H)

Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from  other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its ambiguities in a Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreement s and disputes drawing on ideas from Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge

 

Shows very

strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a welldeveloped consideration of the

Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid insights into the Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge, conventional

critical

understanding of relevant knowledge.  Some

awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge, some formulaic

critical

understanding and awareness

of limitations of knowledge.

 

No integration of ideas.

Mentions some terminology relating to theories,

concepts

 

Demonstrates

insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge.  Very limited critical

understanding

Demonstrates

little core

knowledge.  No

critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Major misunderstandi ngs and

Demonstrates

virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

 

Many errors in understanding

Wholly irrelevant.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
  considered individual voice beyond the module bounds. Offers

original, compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives.

limitations of knowledge.

 

Performance

at this level and above shows

intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity rather than seeking certainty and a single right answer.

limitations of knowledge.

 

No major errors

or misunderstandi ng.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

 

Few

inaccuracies.

 

 

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

and awareness

of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Many errors in understanding and omissions.

significant omissions. and extensive omissions.  
 

 

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School.  Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study

 

 

Application

of knowledge /

skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion

Creative & original

application of knowledge

/skills to

produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive

solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the brief.

Applies knowledge /

skills to

develop a

comprehensi

ve solution / proposal / conclusion which extends

beyond the original boundary of the brief.

 

Extended insights.

Applies knowledge /

skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualise d and solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Alternative approaches might be considered.

 

Thoughtful and developed

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some good

insights /creativity

 

No logical errors.

Applies knowledge/ski

ll in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some but

limited insights/creati vity.

 

Few logical errors

Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited

solution/ proposal/conclus ion.

No insights / creativity Logical errors evident.

Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient. Weak use of knowledge / skills evident.  Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion. No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a

solution/propo sal/ conclusion.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
      insights/ creativity.              
Argument, reasoning Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity.  Wholly relevant. Sharply focused and complex argument.

 

All points wholly relevant

 

Convincing and coherent reasoning.

Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.

 

Mostly relevant points.

 

 

Logically coherent reasoning.

Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.

 

Broadly relevant points.

 

Some

limitations in terms of reasoning

Adequate basic level of

argument provided. Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points Errors in reasoning.

Weak argument with substantial errors in reasoning. Descriptive or largely incoherent Largely incoherent No argument

is offered

Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

 

* APA 7th

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Comprehensi ve use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing

fully

competent and accurate

Task is very

well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.

 

All points fully substantiated.

 

No unsubstantiat ed points.

 

Referencing

fully

competent and accurate

Task is well supported by more developed use

of

sources/eviden

ce

 

Most points are substantiated and no major unsubstantiate d points

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate. 

Some minor

errors in citations or references.

Task is supported by several sources

/evidence.

 

Some points

are unsubstantiat ed.

 

Referenced

appropriately

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

 

Significant number of points are unsubstantiated.  Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

 

Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.

 

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

Little or no

evidence

 

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

 

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence No citations
Structure and, style in supporting

the

developmen

t of ideas (criteria relevant for

Elegant flow and structure is

integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively

Elegance of flow that

skilfully

through the work and excellently supports key message.

 

Well-ordered logical flow of material in a

fluid style which contributes

well to the development of the key

Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages. Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual in reflecting argument or analysis. No evident intent of structure.

Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content.

None Insufficient evidence
  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
essay-style work) guides the reader.   messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.

 

  some extent, but which can lapse in places. May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages.        
Language and style Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice. Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice. Clear and straightforward use language.

 

Largely error free

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Limited flaws.

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the text.

 

Many

vocabulary, grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning

Extensive flaws in vocabulary, grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being

understandable

.

Unacceptable Insufficient evidence
Formatting of work (font, pagination, labelling) Impeccable formatting

entirely consonant with

assessment

brief expectations

Excellent formatting.

Polished and consonant with the

assessment

brief expectations.

Formatting consonant

with

assessment

brief expectations.  No formatting issues.

Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief. Formatting broadly consonant

with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance.

Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.

Some

unprofessional aspects

Formatting not sufficiently consonant with

assessment

brief. Multiple formatting issues.

Formatting not consonant with

assessment

brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues

No discernible attempt format work. No formatting