BU7404 Assessment NEW 21_22
Module Title | Leading and Managing Ethically |
Module Code | BU7404 |
Module Leader | Dr. Trevor Omoruyi Prof. Paul Manning |
Component Number | Assessment |
Module Learning Outcomes |
|
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting | Individual written assignment 4000 words 100% of module grade |
Submission Deadline | TBC |
Submission Instructions | Turnitin on Moodle space. Submit one file only |
Feedback Return Date | TBC |
Faculty of Business & Management Assessment Brief
Learning Outcomes Covered by this assessment.
|
Assessment Task Preparatory tasks: Choose an organisation which you currently work in, or have worked in, or have access to in-depth knowledge of (e.g. a family business, one that a family member works for).
Choose one of the following HRM topics:
Task: Within your chosen area of HRM, and with reference to relevant ethical theories, identify and explain an issue, policy or practice which represents a potential ethical problem or dilemma. Critically analyse and evaluate the organisation’s current approach to this area of HRM and its management of the ethical problem or dilemma you identify, drawing on both HRM and ethical academic literature. Make two or three recommendations as to how your organisation could adopt a more ethical approach in this area. |
Specific Criteria / Guidance There is no one correct way to approach this assessment. However, please take account of the following guidance.
|
Key Resources/Reading Please refer to the recommended and further reading on the module pages. |
Presentation Please refer to the Assessment Guidance (on moodle page) for detailed information on: –
It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with the above as failure to do this may impact on your achievement in this assessment. |
Distinction 90%+ Evidence of… |
Distinction 80-89% Evidence of… |
Distinction 70-79% Evidence of… |
Merit 60-69%Evidence of… |
Pass (threshold +) 50-59% Evidence of… |
Fail 40-49% Evidence of… |
Fail 30-39% Evidence of… |
Fail 0-29% Evidence of… |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge & Understanding of ethical and HRM management, theory and practice 20%
|
as 80-89 &
|
as 70-79 &
|
as 60-69 &
|
as 50- 59 &
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Critical Analysis & Interpretation 40%
|
as 80-89 &
|
as 70-79 &
|
as 60-69 &
|
as 50- 59 &
|
as 40-49 &
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Critical Reflection: Personal &/or Professional Application & Evaluation 30%
|
as 80-89 &
|
as 70-79 &
|
as 60-69 &
|
as 50- 59 &
|
as 40-49 &
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Knowledge & Understanding of business ethics in management, theory and practice 10%
Understanding of relevant ethical theories |
as 80-89 &
Excellence in all aspects |
as 70-79 &
An original synthesis of disparate material. |
as 60-69 &
A synthesis, possibly, of disparate material. |
as 50- 59 &
An awareness of problems and insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice. |
Accuracy in detail. |
|
|
|
|
Expression Written vocabulary and academic style |
Exceptional clarity and coherence; highly sophisticated expression; work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions |
Extremely well-written, with accuracy and flair; Highly sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas |
Very clear, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and style. Authoritative, articulate communication demonstrating a balance of enthusiasm and control |
Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style. Academic form largely matches that expected in published work |
Clearly written, coherent expression; observing academic form reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style |
Expression, vocabulary and style reasonably clear , observing academic form; but lacking sophistication |
Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology |
Lack of clarity, very poor expression; style inappropriate, terminology inadequate and inappropriate |
Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear |
Sources Academic referencing skills |
All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented. Excellent quality of sources used. |
All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented. Excellent quality of sources used |
All sources acknowledged and meticulously presented. Excellent quality of sources used |
Sources acknowledged and accurately presented. Some use of high quality sources |
Sources acknowledged and referencing mostly accurate. Limited use of high quality sources |
Sources acknowledged; references not always correctly cited/presented. Poor quality of sources used |
Referencing incomplete, or inaccurate. |
Referencing inaccurate or absent |
No attempt at referencing |