SHR0 126 American Academy of English Leading and Managing People Case Discussion
Question Description
1400 words
Similarity less than 7%
plagrisim report is needed
For any clarification please ask
Coursework Information Sheet
To be supplied to students when they receive the coursework assignment task
| Unit Co-ordinator: Dr Steve McPeake |
| Unit Name: Leading and Managing People |
| Unit Code: SHR012-6 |
| Title of Coursework: Assignment 2 – Case Study: Business Ethics |
| % weighting of final unit grade: 60% |
Feedback details
The University policy is that you will receive prompt feedback on your work within 20 working days of the submission date. Exceptionally where this is not achievable (for example due to staff sickness) you will be notified as soon as possible of the revised date and the reasons behind the change.
| Submission Date: 5th June 2020 by noon Oman time |
| Details of how to access the feedback: Individual feedback via BREO Assignments On-line. |
Aim: To develop a critical awareness of current factors affecting leading and managing people and to demonstrate how effective policies can add value to the business’ strategic goals.
Learning Outcomes:
To be able to
- Demonstrate critical knowledge and understanding around key and contemporary debates about theory and practice in Leading and Managing People in organisations;
- Evaluate and analyse relevant models for effective people performance, leadership and management within an organisational context.
- Critically evaluate and analyse the effectiveness of change management in organisations.
Context: The Case Study
Please read the following Case Study (which has been anonymised, but which is based on a real-life example) and then respond to the accompanying tasks in the form of a consultant’s report*.
Your company, Orion Analytics (OA), is a UK-based company offering specialist services to Middle East states. OA has recently been offered a contract with a GCC member state (‘the State’) to act as the procurement services arm (‘Procurement Agency’ / PA) of the government for the next 10 years (including for government – led services such as health, defence, and education).
The family see a successful PA as an essential stepping stone and commercial ‘bridge’ with capitalist countries worldwide. A properly run PA would enable the State to diversify its economy away from oil which is now providing diminishing revenues. It therefore wishes to base its approach to business ethics in respect of how the PA operates in discharging its procurement functions with other companies inside and beyond the State along lines which meet the ‘best practice’ of countries elsewhere, for example in the UK and western Europe. In that way the ruling family believe, much needed future inward investment in the State will be generated.
The ruling family are well aware of ‘challenges’ when dealing with procurement which previously led to embarrassing publicity in discussions within the Majlis (the State’s representative assembly). Also, geographically nearby are five countries currently in the world bottom ten for corruption. The ruling family are worried the State will be compared negatively alongside those already featuring at the bottom of this Worldwide Corruption Index; compilation of which is overseen by the World Bank.
Although the king, who was educated at Eton in the UK, is favourably disposed to OA and would readily appoint them to run the new PA, his son is more sceptical. The Crown Prince is aware of a number of ‘scandals’ affecting the UK in recent years which have caused him to doubt the UK as representing a ‘gold standard’ regarding business ethics.
Before awarding the contract to OA therefore, the ruling family have determined that the award will be dependent on receipt and acceptance of a detailed Consultant’s Report which will also be evaluated in due course by the World Bank on whom the State is already increasingly reliant in stabilising its currency (AK), the Arabic Krona…
* Further guidance on the approach to be taken in producing this type of report is given separately on BREO under the ‘Assessment & Feedback’ tab.
e to FcebookShare to TwitterShare to Email AppShare to LinkedIn
Your Tasks as Principal Business Analyst for OA
Produce a consultant’s report of 1400 words (core focus is given in italics below and read the following Assignment Guidance carefully also before preparing your answer) which:
Task 1: Using research based on your analysis of two recent business ethics ‘scandals’; analyse the potential risks that would affect the new PA in terms of its accountability, transparency of operation and employee ethical conduct.
Task 2: Develop an options assessment of how a suitable ethical standard relating to accountability, transparency and employee conduct is to be achieved by PA and monitored in practice.
Task 3: Critically evaluate and justify the sort of leadership model (taken from your study of leadership within this Unit) and philosophy that would best support a sustainable ethical organisation. Illustrate a leadership management of change initiative to remedy the unethical behaviour / culture of one organisation identified section 1 (i.e. using one only of the two ‘scandals’ identified in Task 1). Link these lessons to conclusions and recommendations for the PA organisation.
Assignment Guidance
| Section / Title | Details / Guidance |
| University Coversheet | Include name, student ID number, unit title and code, assessment number, date of submission. |
| Title and Contents Page |
Title of Assignment and numbered sections of the Report. |
| Executive Summary | Do not include an ES – this is a short report. |
| Introduction: (around 150 words) |
Short introduction that outlines briefly why business ethics is an important current topic in the leadership and management of people and signposts the principal issues to be addressed if each of the tasks is to be satisfactorily answered. |
| Task 1: (around 500 words) | You may use recent ‘scandals’ as examples from the UK or elsewhere that have appeared in the media and deal with one or more aspects of accountability / transparency / employee ethical conduct. Please see the more detailed reading under Assessment 2, Assessment & Feedback tab. To keep within the word limits you may need to use tables /charts / diagrams to provide some of your ‘evidence’. Ensure you categorise clearly what is meant by ‘risk’ and who the ‘risk’ applies to. |
| Task 2: (around 500 words) | This is asking you to set out what policies and practices you would put in place to ensure ethical operation at the PA. In some cases, this will mean providing alternatives to achieving the three goals of accountability, transparency and employee conduct within your answer. You should base your approach on best practice. |
| Task 3: (around 450 words) | This should provide a focused answer that critically evaluates and justifies an appropriate leadership model to lead strategic ethical change. There is a need to illustrate and justify a suitable change initiative that would be suitable to change the culture of the unethical organisation selected in task one. Lessons learned should be seen as recommendations that could be used for the PA organisation. |
| Reference List | A list of the third-party sources you have consulted and which are cited directly in the text. Predominately these should be those provided on / accessed via, BREO. A brief note explaining the reason/s for including wider internet sources used should be given at the beginning of your list of references where necessary. 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 | 1,600 words +/- 10% |
| Submission | You should submit your report electronically via BREO Assignments On-line. |
| Assessment Criteria | As illustrated below in the Marking Guidelines. |
| Good Academic Practice | Please see Appendix A at the end of this Assignment Brief for guidance on this issue. |
Marking Guidelines
Mark Band A: 70-100%
Knowledge (Tasks 1 & 2)
Confident, comprehensive understanding of core issues / concepts and a clear / accurate comprehension of their respective significance and impact on organisation. Higher ‘A’ grades will demonstrate very extensive attempts to write concisely in presenting arguments and evidence.
Understanding (Tasks 1 & 2)
Continuous sustained attempt to critically assess and evaluate across the assignment. Signposting of issues in the Introduction will demonstrate some deeper thinking from the student than merely a re-phrasing of the Assignment Brief.
Presentation & Persuasion (Task 3)
Conclusions / recommendations are very closely and explicitly linked to any regulatory / performance ‘gaps’ found in the preceding task/s. Higher ‘A’ grades will rank the significance of findings/ conclusions / recommendations more explicitly than for lower grades. BREO resources will be consistently used and alignment to the questions being addressed will be exact. There will a strong sense of ‘audience’ in Task 3. Clear format which follows report / Harvard protocols accurately
Mark Band B: 60-69%
Knowledge (Tasks 1 & 2)
Comprehensive understanding of core issues / concepts and a clear / accurate comprehension of their respective significance, but less clear / developed regarding impact on organisation than for an ‘A’ grade answer.
Understanding (Tasks 1 & 2)
Analysis and evaluation will predominate, but elements of description may still be evident. Limited efforts to signpost answer in the Introduction.
Presentation & Persuasion (Task 3)
Conclusions / Recommendations will be logical and viable but may not be consistently / explicitly linked to gaps found in the preceding task/s. Findings / conclusions / recommendations will not be comprehensively ranked in terms of their importance as an ‘A’ grade answer. BREO resources will be less convincingly / comprehensively used. Clear format which follows report /Harvard protocols accurately
Mark Band C: 50-59%
Knowledge (Tasks 1 & 2)
A good range of literature and research sources on the topic area has been consulted. Citations will generally be of good quality and often support key arguments / points being made.
Understanding (Tasks 1 & 2)
There will be an attempt to analyse / evaluate but this may not be consistently maintained and some parts of the answer will remain descriptive. Some attempt to signpost answer in Introduction but this may rely on the detail of the Assignment Brief.
Presentation & Persuasion (Task 3)
Findings /Conclusions Recommendations may not be complete / make lack a business case although they will remain logical /viable. They may not be explicitly linked to gaps found in the preceding analysis. BREO resources may be used patchily. Clear format which follows report /Harvard protocols accurately.
Mark Band D: 40-49%
Knowledge (Tasks 1 & 2)
Limited range of literature and research sources on the topic area has been consulted. There is over-reliance on low-level citations often limited in number or patchily presented. 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 (Tasks 1 & 2)
Limited analysis. Lacks enough evidence based argument. Limited reference to theory and/or organisational practice or used inappropriately. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief insufficiently reinforced by citations from appropriate third-party sources, research and relevant literature.
Presentation & Persuasion (Task 3)
Limited expression of concepts clearly, systematically and/or confidently. There is scope to make the discussions more logical and coherent to persuade much more. 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 organised. / Findings/ Conclusions / recommendations will be very weak.
Mark Bands E: 35-39% (Marginal Fail); 1-34% (Fail)
Knowledge (Tasks 1 & 2)
There is little evidence that the student has undertaken any serious study about the 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 (Tasks 1 & 2)
Inadequate or no analysis. Lacks evidence based argument. Insufficient reference to theory and/or organisational practice or used inappropriately. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief not reinforced by citations from any appropriate third-party sources, research and relevant literature.
Presentation & Persuasion (Task 3)
Fails to express concepts clearly, systematically and/or confidently. The work is insufficiently persuasive and does not reflect robust understanding of how the topic works in practice. Findings / conclusions / recommendations will be non-existent or very contradictory to previous sections. 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 organised.
There is no evidence of Unit study (1-34%)
Answers relating to tasks which are not part of the Assignment Brief should be scored ‘2’.
Appendix A – Guidance on academic practice
- 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 synthesising, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
