Assessment Brief BU7039
2021-22 submission date 2nd December 2021
A: Assessment Details | |
Module Title | Understanding and Managing People |
Module Code | BU7039 |
Module Leader | Carol Braniff |
Component Number | Assignment 1 of 1 (covering all learning outcomes) |
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting | Individual essay and reflection (100% – 4,500 words) |
Submission Deadline | 2nd December 2021 before 12 noon |
Submission Instructions | Online through Turnitin |
Feedback Return Date | 13th January 2022 |
B: Learning Outcomes |
LO1: Critically apply a range of management theories to specific organisational challenges LO2: Demonstrate a critical understanding of approaches to leadership in context LO3: Critically evaluate how leadership approaches for employee retention and success, can be employed to respond to workplace challenges LO4: Identify and design appropriate development plans in response to a learning intervention e.g. coaching and mentoring |
C: Assessment Task |
This assessment is based on a case study which provides a realistic business challenge and has five questions of equal value to answer. Assessment Task: The new leadership team at C&C (case study) have asked for your assistance to conduct thorough analysis of the challenges that the business is facing. They would like you to provide an evidenced-based essay to help them to prepare for discussions at the next Board Meeting. Case study: Coffee and Cake (C&C) is a privately owned company that runs an established chain of cafes in sixty locations around the UK. Most are located on high streets and in shopping centres, but there are also units located in large railway stations and some airports. The company sells a wide variety of speciality coffees, cakes, sandwiches and other beverages. It markets itself as a sustainable business with high standards of business ethics, which the business is committed to. Throughout the Twentieth Century there was a single C&C coffee house located prominently in Central London. This was then taken over by a by a company that was keen to profit from the fast growth in the UK’s coffee shop market. Much money was invested in building the chain and for several years good profits were made. After 2015 though, problems started to arise. Sales began to slump in a number of locations as competition from ambitious independents and other coffee shop chains became more intense. Issues arose concerning unpaid debts and the company started to struggle financially. By the time of the Covid pandemic it was in serious financial difficulty and in danger of becoming insolvent. In 2021 the company was sold to a consortium of four former C&C managers with finance largely provided by a venture capital fund. The aim of the new leadership and management team is to meet stakeholder expectations, reclaim its reputation and image and return to profitability in the next two years. While there are many factors behind C&C’s recent poor performance, it is clear that poor management of people has been a major problem area for some time. Staff turnover was running at over 100% in 2019 and employee engagement levels have been very poor in several coffee shops for some years. Good evidence of these matters is found on the Glassdoor website where hundreds of current and former employees have written troubling reviews of their experiences working for the company. Overall ratings since 2015 have been below 3 out of 5, which is considerably lower than the scores typically achieved by C&C’s major competitors. The following are a representative sample of some of the recent comments that have been left in the Pros and Cons section on Glassdoor: “Lovely regular customers. Met some good friends” “Friendly and supportive staff who were happy to swap shifts. Tips” “Staff discount on cakes and food” “The only good thing was that it was located only three minutes walking from the place that I used to live.” “You learn basic management tasks and can improve your communication skills. Free lunch and cakes.” “I guess it pays your bills if you’re single and live in shared accommodation” MAY 2021: “If you want a culture where the quality of the product, the customer, the brand and the staff are key to how the business works, avoid C&C.” “Nothing at all was positive” “No real opportunities for advancement” “Never put enough staff on shift. Bad at giving breaks, you can work an 8-9 hour shift and not be given a 30-minute break. Never know when your shift will end.” “Every unit is understaffed, always.” “It was soul-destroying, you’re taken advantage of and paid very little and you are spoken to by management like you’re a child (in front of customers)” “No gratitude for anything, lazy people get paid the same as hard working employees” “Payroll is terrible, consistently mess up pay and will throw the blame on each other rather than own their own mistakes.” “Head office only cares about the numbers, not the people” “Some managers are controlling to the point of bullying. While others couldn’t care less. The unit managers and HQ are also incompetent. Nothing gets resolved quickly or accurately.” “Horrible management, no training at all” “Terrible company to work for expected to give absolutely everything for nothing in return. Won’t pay for overtime.” “A lot of unfairness. If the manager is your friend you’ll have advantages Senior managers tend to be offensive and won’t think twice before humiliating you.” “Customers can be super nasty. They will call you names and shout at you for the smallest things.” “The staff at my store are nice. You get free food and drink, even though you aren’t officially allowed it. You get to keep your tips if you are a waiter.” “Management are underqualified and not trained. Many health and safety violations, especially regarding food. Equipment doesn’t get fixed, and the lack of training means things break a lot” “Management are more concerned about reaching unrealistic goals than the wellbeing of their staff or the quality of service provided Longstanding staff are not appreciated or rewarded. Low pay. Little to no training.” “Rude customers sometimes, repetitive and same tasks most shifts” “A very poor company on SOOOOO many levels – they won’t care about you – don’t go & work for them – they are full of the proverbial !!” Assessment Questions: LO1: Critically apply a range of management theories to specific organisational challenges.
Assessment Task: (20%) Construct an evidenced-based critical discussion to demonstrate how leadership and management approaches affect the performance of people and as such the performance of the organisation. LO2: Demonstrate a critical understanding of approaches to leadership in context.
Assessment Task: (20%) Using your analysis in (1), critically evaluate the existing leadership and management approach at C&C, and the impact this has had on the retention and performance of employees and as a result the performance of the business. LO3: Critically evaluate how leadership approaches for employee retention and success, can be employed to respond to workplace challenges.
Assessment Task: (20%) Using your analysis in 1 and 2, critically evaluate the effectiveness of leading and managing people at C&C to retain employees and achieve organisational aims and objectives. LO4: Identify and design appropriate development plans in response to a learning intervention e.g. coaching and mentoring
Assessment task: (20%) Using analysis in (3) critically assess the key learning and development requirements for the leaders and managers at C&C and justify how this would help to retain valuable employees and drive business success.
|
D: Specific Criteria/Guidance |
Your work will be marked according to the following criteria (it is important that you familiarise yourself with the marking rubric for guidance, as it applies to each question, along with details of your work will be assessed).
Essay structure
Guidance for your personal reflection (assessment task 5) You are expected to critically reflect on your learning experience and identify practical ways in how YOU can improve your learning in future sessions, for example:
|
E: Key Resources Include recommended texts and peer-reviewed electronic sources which you expect students to use and can access. |
Key Resources/Reading Bratton, J., & Gold, J. (2017). Human resource management: theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 1 “What is leadership: person, result, position or process?” in Grint, K. (2009) Leadership: limits and possibilities, Palgrave (scanned, currently under BU7404 Leading and Managing Ethically) Chapter 5 “Leadership” in Rees, G. and French, R. eds. (2013) Leading, Managing and Developing People, 3rd edition, CIPD (currently no scanned copies but multiple copies in Queens Park library) Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003a). Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-) leadership in a knowledge-intensive organisation. Organization Studies, 24(6), 961-988. Northouse, P. (2012) Leadership: Theory and Practice, Chapter 2 The Apollo Syndrome, in Belbin, R. Meredith (2010) Management Teams (e-book) Caplan, J. (2003) Coaching for the future: how smart companies use coaching and mentoring. London: CIPD Clutterbuck, D. and Megginson,D. (2005) Making coaching work: creating a coaching culture. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Downey, M. (2004) Effective Coaching, 2nd ed. London: Texere. Garvey B., Stokes P., Megginson D. (2014) Coaching and Mentoring, Theory and Practice 2nd Ed. Sage, London Journals
Websites: |
F: Submission Guidance | |
Student work that does not have this information on will not be identifiable after marking has taken place and risks being recorded as a non-submission. | |
G: Academic Integrity and Penalties | |
It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure to do this may impact on your achievement. Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance below for detailed information on: Excess Word Count Penalties (found within 5.15 of the handbook) Cite Them Right Online guidance University Generic Marking Criteria for L7 Late Work Penalties: Unless you have an extension, any work submitted past the assessment deadline will be subject to a penalty as per university regulations (5 marks per day deduction). | |
H: Rubrics and Criteria | |
Please see attached rubric (Appendix 5E). |
Assessment Rubric – Appendix 5E
Distinction 90–100% | Distinction 80-89% | Distinction 70-79% | Merit 60-69% | Pass 50-59% | Fail 40-49% | Fail 30-39% | Fail 20-29% | Fail 10-19% | Fail 0-9% | |
Knowledge Knowledge and understanding of the approaches and application of leading, managing and developing people in organisations. Critical engagement with the sources used to answer the question. | Insightful and sophisticated engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to field(s) and disciplines of study. Sophisticated demonstration and application of knowledge, offering innovative and/or original insights, possibly unparalleled in their application. A sophisticated degree of synthesis, quite likely of complex and disparate material. | Advanced engagement with research and or practice pertaining to the field(s) and disciplines of study. Accomplished demonstration of knowledge, contributing towards innovative and/or original insights. Extremely high degree of synthesis of research material. | A high degree of engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to field(s) and disciplines of study. Excellent demonstration of knowledge, with the possibility for new insights. A high degree of synthesis relating to research material. | Sustained engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to disciplines of study. An assured understanding of current problems, supported by critical analysis with the potential for new insights. A sustained application and depth of research material and accuracy in detail. | Engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to discipline and key issues. Satisfactory understanding and conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis. Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes, where the knowledge is accurate. Work may lack sustained depth. | Unsatisfactory engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to discipline and key issues. Insufficient understanding and conceptual awareness of knowledge(s) pertaining to the field. Response does not address the full range of learning outcomes, inaccurate and/or missing knowledge at times. | Inadequate coverage of relevant issues, inconsistent understanding shown. Inadequate understanding of underpinning issues, weak and underdeveloped analysis. Response does not address learning outcomes, inaccurate and missing knowledge. | Lack of relevant research and little understanding shown. Very weak understanding of key issues, work lacks critical oversight. Substandard engagement with research material, misunderstanding evident. | Severely lacking in relevant research and underpinning knowledge. Slight understanding of key issues, little attempt at critical analysis. Slight engagement with research material, inaccurate knowledge and misunderstanding throughout. | Negligible understanding of key issues, which is likely to show no critical analysis or engagement with the learning brief. No engagement with research tasks. |
Distinction 90–100% | Distinction 80-89% | Distinction 70-79% | Merit 60-69% | Pass 50-59% | Fail 40-49% | Fail 30-39% | Fail 20-29% | Fail 10-19% | Fail 0-9% | |
Analysis Critical analysis and interpretation. Critical evaluation of leading, managing and developing people, in response to the business challenge in the case study provided. Appropriate analytical discussion and interpretation of source material. | A sophisticated command of imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations. An unparalleled level of analysis and evaluation. A sophisticated cogent argument offering new and original contributions to knowledge. | Advanced command of imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations. Accomplished level of analysis and evaluation. A highly developed cogent argument with the potential to bring new and original contributions to knowledge. | An excellent command of imaginative, original or creative interpretations. A high degree of analysis and evaluation. A sustained argument with the possibility for new insights. | A convincing and sustained command of accepted critical positions. A developed conceptual understanding that enables the student to find new meanings in established hypotheses. A developed and sustained argument with the possibility for new insights. | An ability to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively. A satisfactory evaluation of current research and critical scholarship in the discipline. Ability to devise a coherent critical/ analytical argument is supported with evidence. | A lack of ability to deal with complex issues. Judgements not fully substantiated and understood. The ability to construct an argument is underdeveloped and not supported fully with evidence. | A lack of ability to deal with complex issues. Judgements are not substantiated or understood and the critical position is not made clear. Weak interpretation of research and work is not supported with evidence. | Very weak analysis, possibly limited to a single perspective. Substandard argument, work lacks scholarly analysis and interpretation. Episodes of self- contradiction and/or confusion. | Slight indication of ability to deal with key issues. Slight analytical engagement and reflection, work lacks criticality throughout. Lacks evidence, work shows self-contradiction and confusion. | Negligible coverage of learning outcomes. No attempt to interpret research material. |
Communication and expression Communication skills: written vocabulary and academic style. Communication of intent, adherence to academic protocols. | A sophisticated response, the academic form matches that expected in published and professional work. Mastery and command of specialist skills pertaining to the academic form. Fluent and highly coherent, scholarly expression. | Persuasive articulation, were the academic form largely matches that expected in published work. Accomplished command of specialist skills pertaining to the academic form, discipline, and context(s); | A high degree of skill, the academic form shows exceptional standards of presentation or delivery. A high command of specialist skills pertaining to the academic form, discipline, and context(s). | Secure and sustained expression, observing appropriate academic form. Fluent and persuasive expression of ideas, work shows flair. Assured interpretation of the style and genre, content, form and technique for specialist and non-specialist audiences as appropriate. | Good expression, observing appropriate academic form. Predominantly accurate in spelling and grammar, ideas communicated appropriately and satisfactorily. Satisfactory application of specialist skills with effective technical control. | Unsatisfactory demonstration and application of key communication skills and academic form. Recurring errors in spelling and grammar, ideas limited and underdeveloped, possibly poor paraphrasing. Skills demonstrated are insufficient for the task and work may lack technical judgement. | Significant errors evident in the academic form. Weaknesses in spelling and grammar, lacks coherence and structure, possibly poor paraphrasing. Work lacks technical judgement. | Very weak observation of academic conventions. Severe deficiencies in spelling and grammar and expression undermine meaning, possibly poor paraphrasing. Substandard relationship between content, form and technique. | Slight observation of academic conventions. Weak expression, mostly incoherent and fails to secure meaning, poor paraphrasing. Slight engagement with the work. | Negligible observation of academic conventions. Incoherent and confused expression, poor paraphrasing. No discernible demonstration of key skills (pertaining to the discipline); No engagement with the work. |
Distinction 90–100% | Distinction 80-89% | Distinction 70-79% | Merit 60-69% | Pass 50-59% | Fail 40-49% | Fail 30-39% | Fail 20-29% | Fail 10-19% | Fail 0-9% | |
Reflection Critical personal and professional reflection Intellectual engagement with the processes by which the work is realised. | Insightful response to critical self- evaluation, reflecting exemplary professional and/or personal standards of engagement and conduct throughout. Sophisticated application of reflective practice to create new insights pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | Advanced level of critical self-evaluation, reflecting professional and/or personal standards of engagement and conduct throughout. Accomplished application of reflective practice to create new insights pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | A high degree of critical self-evaluation, reflecting professional and/ or personal standards of engagement and conduct. Excellent application of reflective practice to create new insights pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | An assured level of self- evaluation, reflecting sustained professional and/or personal standards of engagement and conduct. Assured application of reflective practice to create new insights pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | A satisfactory self-evaluation, reflecting appropriate standards of professional and/or personal engagement and conduct; Satisfactory engagement with reflective practice pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | Unsatisfactory self-evaluation of professional and/or personal engagement and conduct. Unsatisfactory engagement with reflective practice pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | Weak self- evaluation of professional and/or personal engagement and conduct. Weak engagement with reflective practice pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | Very weak self- evaluation of professional and/or personal engagement and conduct. Substandard engagement with reflective practice pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | Slight evidence of self-evaluation of professional and/or personal engagement and conduct. Slight evidence of engagement with reflective practice pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future | Negligible evidence of self- evaluation of professional and/or personal engagement and conduct. No engagement with engagement with reflective practice pertaining to own learning, currently and in the future |
Sources Academic referencing skills Reading and use of appropriate sources. Accurate and consistent acknowledgment and referencing of sources. | Extensive range and sophisticated use of appropriate sources. Unparalleled standard of research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates a very high intellectual engagement and rigor. | Extensive range and use of appropriate sources. Extremely well referenced research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates high intellectual engagement and rigor. | Substantial range and sophisticated use of sources. Well- referenced research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates clear intellectual rigor. | An assured range of reading, with sustained reference to key and core texts. The work may include current research at the leading edge of the discipline. Very good referencing in breadth and/or depth, which shows a very good level of intellectual rigor. Sources acknowledged appropriately according to academic conventions of referencing. | A satisfactory range of core and basic texts, which references current research in the discipline. Sources acknowledged appropriately according to academic conventions of referencing. The work may contain minor errors and be limited in breadth, depth and intellectual rigor. | Insufficient range of source reading of core and basic texts. Sources not acknowledged in line with academic conventions of referencing. | Reading material is inadequate and may not include core and basic texts. Sources inaccurately referenced. | Very weak engagement with source reading of core and basic texts. Inconsistent and/or limited referencing of sources. | Severely lacking source reading. Sources either not present and/or not referenced. | Negligible attempt to identify source material. No indication of source reading. |