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	Develop knowledge and understanding of contemporary business ethics, leadership and management Critically assess and evaluate contemporary conceptualisations of leadership and management from an ethical perspective Systematically formulate appropriate HRM responses to enable an organisation to better achieve its objectives within an ethical framework
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.

Develop knowledge and understanding of contemporary business ethics, leadership and management
Critically assess and evaluate contemporary conceptualisations of leadership and management from an ethical perspective
Systematically formulate appropriate HRM responses to enable an organisation to better achieve its objectives within an ethical framework

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:

Employee voice
Reward management
Performance management
Flexibility, well-being and work-life balance

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.

Your work will be marked according to the following criteria (please see the marking rubric below for details of what each element covers in relation to the task):

Highlighting key business ethics theories and it’s importance in every organisation, with emphasis to your selected organization. (10%)
Knowledge and understanding of ethical and HRM theory and practice (20%)
Critical analysis and interpretation of HRM theory and practice – with reference to the chosen ethical HRM issue (40%)
Critical reflection, personal and professional evaluation, and application – making informed recommendations to improve HR practice with reference to the chosen ethical HRM issue (30%)

The key to this paper is to be able to identify, integrate and synthesise relevant academic business ethics theories with close analysis and evaluation of a specific HRM issue within an organisation.

This means using each to inform, interpret, analyse and evaluate the other
Make sure that you include both ethical and HRM theory and sources
How might a particular theory help to explain the nature of the identified ethical issue in HRM practice?
How does your identified ethical issue in HRM practice help to evaluate a particular theory?

It is usually more effective to aim for an in-depth analysis with a narrow focus, rather than trying to cover many different things.

Make sure that you choose to discuss a specific HRM practice which represents an ethical issue or dilemma.
You are not expected to provide a comprehensive account of your chosen HRM topic or ethical theory.
You will be given credit for being able to select appropriate and relevant materials and integrate them effectively.

You may choose any organisation, but it is recommended that you chose one in which you either work or are very familiar with. The more personal and inside knowledge you have of that organisation, the more detailed and insightful your analysis is likely to be.

Use the following to help structure your paper:

Include a brief introduction to your chosen organisation, for example the industry in which it is based, the nature of its work and operations, any relevant history e.g. reasons for recent changes. However, this introduction should be kept to a minimum. Make sure what you include is relevant and will help the reader to understand your analysis and evaluation.

Describe your chosen ethical problem or dilemma in academically informed ways, with reference to both relevant HRM theory and literature and business and corporate ethics theory literature. You should contextualize the ethical issue within the wider HRM practice within which it sits.

Explain and discuss the nature of the ethical problem or dilemma, for example how it has arisen, whether it is recognized as an ethical issue (and why), how significant or serious it is, who it potentially affects, what the potential consequences might be, why it has not been resolved up to now.

Provide a critical evaluation of the organisation’s current approach to your chosen area of HRM and your identified ethical problem or dilemma. This should reflect and draw on your discussion of the nature of the dilemma and discussion of relevant theory and literature.

Include two or three recommendations to enable the organisation to adopt a more ethical approach in your chosen area. These should directly draw on your discussion and evaluation of the problem and existing approach. You should be able to justify your recommendations as appropriate for the organisational context and with reference to relevant academic literature.

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: –

Academic Malpractice
APA Reference Guide
Late Work Penalties
Excess word count penalties
University Generic Marking Criteria

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% Range of reading beyond core management texts Selection of relevant ethical and HRM theories Understanding of relevant ethical and HRM theories	as 80-89 & A highly original piece of work which generates an original contribution to theory and/or practice Work could hardly be bettered under parallel conditions	as 70-79 & Innovative coverage, offering sophisticated and original insights; An original synthesis of disparate material.	as 60-69 & Extensive, well-referenced research both in breadth & depth. Excellent coverage, offering sophisticated or original insights; A synthesis, possibly, of disparate material.	as 50- 59 & A range in breadth or depth of well-referenced research An awareness of problems and insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice.	A range of reading, beyond core and basic texts and including some reference to current research in the discipline, with sources appropriately acknowledged according to academic conventions of referencing. Adequate understanding of relevant knowledge; Identification, selection and moderate understanding of key issues; Some conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis; Response is appropriate to the question and adequately addresses the range of learning outcomes; Accurate knowledge, but may lack sustained depth or detail.	The range of reading is limited to core and basic texts; sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged .poor coverage of relevant issues with limited understanding; identification of some underpinning issues.	The range of reading is minimal and does not extend beyond basic texts There may be reliance on non-academic sources sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged Poor coverage of relevant issues with very limited understanding or significant errors Limited identification of underpinning issues	Paucity of relevant material in support of response Sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged Minimal coverage of relevant issues Significant errors in understanding Minimal identification of underpinning issues
Critical Analysis & Interpretation 40% Constructing a coherent argument addressing the task, supported by evidence Synthesising different theories and arguments Critical evaluation of theories in relation to understanding and interpreting a specific ethical HRM issue	as 80-89 & A highly original approach to the task; Original and sustained analysis and evaluation which generates new insights into the chosen HRM practice Work could hardly be bettered under parallel conditions	as 70-79 & An innovative approach to the task; Highly creative, insightful, and original interpretations; Impressive, sustained level of analysis and evaluation which generates original insights into the ethical nature of the chosen HRM practice	as 60-69 & A cogent argument with awareness of limitations .Imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations; Impressive, sustained level of analysis and evaluation.	as 50- 59 & A convincing command of accepted critical positions; Conceptual understanding that enables the student to propose new hypotheses.	as 40-49 & Ability to devise and sustain a coherent argument supported by evidence. An ability to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and make sound judgements; Consistent analysis and critical evaluation of current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline and of the ethical nature of the chosen HRM practice	Ability to devise a coherent argument supported by evidence. Some ability to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and to make sound judgements; Whilst the analysis may be inconsistent, there is adequate critical evaluation of current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline and of the ethical nature of the chosen HRM practice	The ability to construct an argument is limited. A lack of ability to deal with complex issues; Judgements not all well substantiated; Some attempted evaluation of research and scholarship	Very limited evidence of a coherent argument Analysis is very limited, deriving from limited sources and/or too limited to a single perspective; likely to be largely descriptive Argument or position not made clear	Poor or no structure – self-contradiction or confusion. Analysis is very limited, or non-existent; descriptive or merely recounting arguments from poor or inappropriate sources Argument or position not made clear
Critical Reflection: Personal &/or Professional Application & Evaluation 30% Effectively apply relevant ethical and HRM theory to organisational practice Ability to critically evaluate organisational HRM practice and propose appropriate and academically informed recommendations to improve practice	as 80-89 & Exemplary level of critical reflexive analysis and evaluation generating new insights for ethical HRM practice Work could hardly be bettered under parallel conditions	as 70-79 & A highly sophisticated synthesis of relevant theory and ethical HRM practice Imaginative, creative or innovative insights informing ethical HRM practice	as 60-69 & A sophisticated integration between relevant theory and ethical HRM practice A very sophisticated critical reflexive analysis and evaluation; Original insights informing ethical HRM practice.	as 50- 59 & Sophisticated evaluation generates some new insights Originality in evaluating HRM practice and identifying solutions or ways to improve practice	as 40-49 & Ability to learn independently through critical evaluation to advance the student’s knowledge and understanding, new skills and approaches or perspectives for ethical HRM practice	Ability to identify and explore connections between theory and organisational HRM practice and understanding Ability to evaluate organisational practice with regard to chosen HR practice and make recommendations, but limited ability to identify or propose new approaches or perspectives for relevant HRM practice	Connections between theory and practice are superficial Some limited evaluation but generating minimal implications for developing relevant HRM practice	Very limited connections made between theory and practice Evaluation is very limited; typically descriptive No evidence of appropriate recommendations	Little or no connections made between theory and personal practice Eevaluation is not evident No evidence appropriate recommendations
Knowledge & Understanding of business ethics in management, theory and practice 10% Range of reading beyond core texts Selection of relevant ethical theories Understanding of relevant ethical theories	as 80-89 & An original and perceptive piece of work which generates an original contribution to theory and/or practice Excellence in all aspects	as 70-79 & Innovative coverage, offering sophisticated and original insights; An original synthesis of disparate material.	as 60-69 & Extensive, well-referenced research both in breadth & depth. Excellent coverage, offering sophisticated or original insights; A synthesis, possibly, of disparate material.	as 50- 59 & A range in breadth or depth of well-referenced research An awareness of problems and insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice.	A good range of reading, beyond core and basic texts and including reasonably wide reference to current research at the leading edge of the discipline, with sources appropriately acknowledged according to academic conventions of referencing. A systematic understanding of relevant knowledge; Good identification, selection and sound understanding of key issues; Awareness of current problems and/or new insights; Accuracy in detail.	The range of reading is limited to core and basic texts; sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged Poor coverage of relevant issues with limited understanding; identification of some underpinning issues.	The range of reading is very limited sources not explicitly or accurately acknowledged Very poor coverage of relevant issues with limited understanding; identification of underpinning issues is deficient.	The range of reading is minimal and does not extend beyond basic texts There may be reliance on non-academic sources sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged Poor coverage of relevant issues with very limited understanding or significant errors Limited identification of underpinning issues	Paucity of relevant material in support of response Sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged Minimal coverage of relevant issues Significant errors in understanding Minimal identification of underpinning issues

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%

Range of reading beyond core management texts

Selection of relevant ethical and HRM theories

Understanding of relevant ethical and HRM theories

as 80-89 &

A highly original piece of work which generates an original contribution to theory and/or practice
Work could hardly be bettered under parallel conditions

as 70-79 &

Innovative coverage, offering sophisticated and original insights;
An original synthesis of disparate material.

as 60-69 &

Extensive, well-referenced research both in breadth & depth.
Excellent coverage, offering sophisticated or original insights;
A synthesis, possibly, of disparate material.

as 50- 59 &

A range in breadth or depth of well-referenced research
An awareness of problems and insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice.

A range of reading, beyond core and basic texts and including some reference to current research in the discipline, with sources appropriately acknowledged according to academic conventions of referencing.
Adequate understanding of relevant knowledge;
Identification, selection and moderate understanding of key issues;
Some conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis;
Response is appropriate to the question and adequately addresses the range of learning outcomes;
Accurate knowledge, but may lack sustained depth or detail.

The range of reading is limited to core and basic texts;
sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged
.poor coverage of relevant issues with limited understanding;
identification of some underpinning issues.

The range of reading is minimal and does not extend beyond basic texts
There may be reliance on non-academic sources
sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged
Poor coverage of relevant issues with very limited understanding or significant errors
Limited identification of underpinning issues

Paucity of relevant material in support of response
Sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged
Minimal coverage of relevant issues
Significant errors in understanding
Minimal identification of underpinning issues

Critical Analysis

& Interpretation

40%

Constructing a coherent argument addressing the task, supported by evidence

Synthesising different theories and arguments

Critical evaluation of theories in relation to understanding and interpreting a specific ethical HRM issue

as 80-89 &

A highly original approach to the task;
Original and sustained analysis and evaluation which generates new insights into the chosen HRM practice
Work could hardly be bettered under parallel conditions

as 70-79 &

An innovative approach to the task;
Highly creative, insightful, and original interpretations;
Impressive, sustained level of analysis and evaluation which generates original insights into the ethical nature of the chosen HRM practice

as 60-69 &

A cogent argument with awareness of limitations
.Imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations;
Impressive, sustained level of analysis and evaluation.

as 50- 59 &

A convincing command of accepted critical positions;
Conceptual understanding that enables the student to propose new hypotheses.

as 40-49 &

Ability to devise and sustain a coherent argument supported by evidence.
An ability to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and make sound judgements;
Consistent analysis and critical evaluation of current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline and of the ethical nature of the chosen HRM practice

Ability to devise a coherent argument supported by evidence.
Some ability to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and to make sound judgements;
Whilst the analysis may be inconsistent, there is adequate critical evaluation of current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline and of the ethical nature of the chosen HRM practice

The ability to construct an argument is limited.
A lack of ability to deal with complex issues;
Judgements not all well substantiated;
Some attempted evaluation of research and scholarship

Very limited evidence of a coherent argument
Analysis is very limited, deriving from limited sources and/or too limited to a single perspective; likely to be largely descriptive
Argument or position not made clear

Poor or no structure – self-contradiction or confusion.
Analysis is very limited, or non-existent; descriptive or merely recounting arguments from poor or inappropriate sources
Argument or position not made clear

Critical

Reflection: Personal &/or Professional Application & Evaluation

30%

Effectively apply relevant ethical and HRM theory to organisational practice
Ability to critically evaluate organisational HRM practice and propose appropriate and academically informed recommendations to improve practice

as 80-89 &

Exemplary level of critical reflexive analysis and evaluation generating new insights for ethical HRM practice
Work could hardly be bettered under parallel conditions

as 70-79 &

A highly sophisticated synthesis of relevant theory and ethical HRM practice
Imaginative, creative or innovative insights informing ethical HRM practice

as 60-69 &

A sophisticated integration between relevant theory and ethical HRM practice
A very sophisticated critical reflexive analysis and evaluation;
Original insights informing ethical HRM practice.

as 50- 59 &

Sophisticated evaluation generates some new insights
Originality in evaluating HRM practice and identifying solutions or ways to improve practice

as 40-49 &

Ability to learn independently through critical evaluation to advance the student’s knowledge and understanding, new skills and approaches or perspectives for ethical HRM practice

Ability to identify and explore connections between theory and organisational HRM practice and understanding
Ability to evaluate organisational practice with regard to chosen HR practice and make recommendations, but limited ability to identify or propose new approaches or perspectives for relevant HRM practice

Connections between theory and practice are superficial
Some limited evaluation but generating minimal implications for developing relevant HRM practice

Very limited connections made between theory and practice
Evaluation is very limited; typically descriptive
No evidence of appropriate recommendations

Little or no connections made between theory and personal practice
Eevaluation is not evident
No evidence appropriate recommendations

Knowledge

& Understanding

of business ethics in management, theory and practice

10%

Range of reading beyond core texts

Selection of relevant ethical theories

Understanding of relevant ethical theories

as 80-89 &

An original and perceptive piece of work which generates an original contribution to theory and/or practice

Excellence in all aspects

as 70-79 &

Innovative coverage, offering sophisticated and original insights;

An original synthesis of disparate material.

as 60-69 &

Extensive, well-referenced research both in breadth & depth.
Excellent coverage, offering sophisticated or original insights;

A synthesis, possibly, of disparate material.

as 50- 59 &

A range in breadth or depth of well-referenced research

An awareness of problems and insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the discipline/practice.

A good range of reading, beyond core and basic texts and including reasonably wide reference to current research at the leading edge of the discipline, with sources appropriately acknowledged according to academic conventions of referencing.
A systematic understanding of relevant knowledge;
Good identification, selection and sound understanding of key issues;
Awareness of current problems and/or new insights;

Accuracy in detail.

The range of reading is limited to core and basic texts;
sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged

Poor coverage of relevant issues with limited understanding; identification of some underpinning issues.

The range of reading is very limited
sources not explicitly or accurately acknowledged
Very poor coverage of relevant issues with limited understanding;

identification of underpinning issues is deficient.

The range of reading is minimal and does not extend beyond basic texts
There may be reliance on non-academic sources
sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged
Poor coverage of relevant issues with very limited understanding or significant errors
Limited identification of underpinning issues

Paucity of relevant material in support of response
Sources not always explicitly or accurately acknowledged
Minimal coverage of relevant issues
Significant errors in understanding

Minimal identification of underpinning issues

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