Human ressources management

Write a report describing and analysing the HR practices and issues within a company of your choice (subject to approval by the seminar tutor).

You must identify two different HR topics within that company. The HR topics are to be chosen from the weekly session titles on this module, for example Performance Management, Culture, Equality and Diversity, change management etc.

MGT5A1 Coursework 1 Written Report (50% of total module mark)
TASK SPECIFICATIONS
THE TASK
Write a report describing and analysing the HR practices and issues within a company of your choice (subject to approval by the seminar tutor).

You must identify two different HR topics within that company. The HR topics are to be chosen from the weekly session titles on this module, for example Performance Management, Culture, Equality and Diversity, change management etc.

The company and topics must be approved by the seminar tutor, who has the final say over which companies to use. It may be possible to combine different aspects but check with your tutor. Tesco and John Lewis are barred as companies that you can choose.

For each topic you are expected to incorporate at least one appropriate theory/model or recognised practice. For example with Reward you could incorporate Total Reward; Culture you could include Schein or Deal and Kennedy; Performance Management you could include 360 degree feedback etc.

In your Conclusion you are to include at least one recommendation as to how might the company / industry etc improve the situation in the future.

DEADLINES:
(note: all submissions are via Turnitin)

Formative:     Draft report submission 23;59 Friday Week 4 9th Oct

Summative:     Final report submission 2359 Friday Week 6 (23rd Oct)
WORD LIMIT
2,000 words (excluding cover sheet, contents page, references and appendices). Any necessary additional information can be included in an appendix (company history, for example).
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
(you will lose marks if this is not followed):
•    Cover sheet with title, name, date, word count;
•    Contents page;
•    Introduction;
•    Main sections (theories/models review) with appropriate headings and subheadings;
•    Findings (detailing your discoveries about the company(s);
•    Conclusion including at least one recommendation;
•    List of references;
•    Appendices (optional but can be very useful)

Please note: You must use Harvard referencing effectively throughout your work. If you use anything which wasn’t written by you there must be an acknowledgement within the same sentence, and in the list of references at the end.

MGT5A1 CW1 WRITTEN REPORT Assessment Criteria

•    A version of this will appear in the ‘overall comments’ section of your submitted work on Blackboard filled in by the marker.
•    Comments here should be read in conjunction with any specific comments on specific sections made within your submitted work on Blackboard.
•    The marking scheme which follows on the next page details what your work will be marked on within each category.
•    These are the same criteria used to mark the summative version so please follow the advice given by your tutor.

Specific advice on how to improve each area (no grades given at this stage)
CONTENT: QUANTITY, VARIETY, QUALITY OF INFORMATION
HOW TO IMPROVE:

CONTENT: CRITICAL THINKING; OBJECTIVITY
HOW TO IMPROVE:

CONTENT: APPLICATION OF THEORY
HOW TO IMPROVE:

FORMAT AND STRUCTURE
HOW TO IMPROVE:

REFERENCING
HOW TO IMPROVE:

MGT5A1 CW1 Written Report Marking scheme – Formative version
Note: All of the criteria need to be addressed effectively. For the purposes of marking in the summative version we have allocated 20 marks for each one, but as in the real world you might fail the whole thing if, for example in terms of objectivity, you appear to be acting as an unquestioning, subjective fanatic for the company, rather than a neutral observer.
POOR                EXCELLENT
Content: Quantity, variety, quality of information     Poor quantity and variety of information, unreliable sources, lack of breadth and depth. Statements are flawed e.g.  unsupportable, illogical, inconsistent with others    Sufficient quantity and variety to make insights into the topic, some sources may be unreliable. No grossly flawed statements, perhaps some statements are flawed in a minor way    Fairly wide and deep range of information, fairly reliable sources, statements are usually without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others    Wide and deep range of information, mostly reliable sources, statements are mostly without flaws, mostly supported, mostly logical, mostly consistent with others    Very wide  and deep range of information, reliable sources, statements are entirely without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others
Content: Critical thinking; Objectivity    Is entirely subjective, questions nothing, demonstrates little or no interest in going deeper. Little or no synthesis of ideas or sources    Demonstrates a basic ability to think objectively, questions some sources to a basic level, many sources still accepted on face value. Some very basic synthesis of ideas.    Demonstrates a fair ability to think objectively, not many sources are unquestioned, few are accepted at face value. Synthesis is a familiar concept    Demonstrates a very good ability to think objectively, most sources are questioned appropriately, only a few are accepted at face value. Synthesis is a very familiar concept    Is entirely objective (except where applicable, extremely well supported assertions)
Questions the sources automatically, demonstrates fluency in the topic.
Synthesizes extremely effectively
Content: Application of theory    Application of theory demonstrates little or no understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied    Major flaws in either understanding of the theory or the context may be present, but not both     No major flaws in understanding of the theory or the context, one or two minor flaws may be present. Demonstrates good understanding of the theory    No major flaws in understanding of the theory or the context, very few, very minor flaws may be present. Demonstrates very good understanding of the theory    Application of theory demonstrates excellent understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied
Format and structure    Significant elements or combination missing e.g. no title + no contents + no headings + no author / date.
Looks very unprofessional.    Basic elements are in place (i.e. title, basic structure of introduction, main section and conclusions, and clear headings). A lack of other significant elements (names, dates, page numbers, contents, reference list etc) may fail it. Looks unprofessional    All basic elements in place, minor lapses are permitted, looks marginally professional    All basic elements in place, few lapses in other elements, looks fairly profession    Conforms perfectly to the requirements laid out, all elements in place and all very good quality, looks very professional
Referencing*    Poor or no references or citations    Identifiable references linking effectively to citations, appropriately (i.e. all and any ideas which are not from the student must be acknowledged). Limited range and quality of sources.    Identifiable references link well to citations.
Range of quality and variety of sources demonstrates some understanding of the field.    Most ideas from sources are effectively referenced and cited on the whole; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a good understanding of the field    Every idea not coming from the student is effectively referenced and cited; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a very comprehensive understanding of the field
*Students must avoid plagiarism: the use of ideas or text written by someone else (or submitted by the student him/herself for another purpose) without effective referencing. If a work contains plagiarised content the student may be given an automatic ‘0’ grade and/or further more severe penalties. Please see the Quality Handbook for more details on this.

Human ressources management

Write a report describing and analysing the HR practices and issues within a company of your choice (subject to approval by the seminar tutor).

You must identify two different HR topics within that company. The HR topics are to be chosen from the weekly session titles on this module, for example Performance Management, Culture, Equality and Diversity, change management etc.

MGT5A1 Coursework 1 Written Report (50% of total module mark)
TASK SPECIFICATIONS
THE TASK
Write a report describing and analysing the HR practices and issues within a company of your choice (subject to approval by the seminar tutor).

You must identify two different HR topics within that company. The HR topics are to be chosen from the weekly session titles on this module, for example Performance Management, Culture, Equality and Diversity, change management etc.

The company and topics must be approved by the seminar tutor, who has the final say over which companies to use. It may be possible to combine different aspects but check with your tutor. Tesco and John Lewis are barred as companies that you can choose.

For each topic you are expected to incorporate at least one appropriate theory/model or recognised practice. For example with Reward you could incorporate Total Reward; Culture you could include Schein or Deal and Kennedy; Performance Management you could include 360 degree feedback etc.

In your Conclusion you are to include at least one recommendation as to how might the company / industry etc improve the situation in the future.

DEADLINES:
(note: all submissions are via Turnitin)

Formative:     Draft report submission 23;59 Friday Week 4 9th Oct

Summative:     Final report submission 2359 Friday Week 6 (23rd Oct)
WORD LIMIT
2,000 words (excluding cover sheet, contents page, references and appendices). Any necessary additional information can be included in an appendix (company history, for example).
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
(you will lose marks if this is not followed):
•    Cover sheet with title, name, date, word count;
•    Contents page;
•    Introduction;
•    Main sections (theories/models review) with appropriate headings and subheadings;
•    Findings (detailing your discoveries about the company(s);
•    Conclusion including at least one recommendation;
•    List of references;
•    Appendices (optional but can be very useful)

Please note: You must use Harvard referencing effectively throughout your work. If you use anything which wasn’t written by you there must be an acknowledgement within the same sentence, and in the list of references at the end.

MGT5A1 CW1 WRITTEN REPORT Assessment Criteria

•    A version of this will appear in the ‘overall comments’ section of your submitted work on Blackboard filled in by the marker.
•    Comments here should be read in conjunction with any specific comments on specific sections made within your submitted work on Blackboard.
•    The marking scheme which follows on the next page details what your work will be marked on within each category.
•    These are the same criteria used to mark the summative version so please follow the advice given by your tutor.

Specific advice on how to improve each area (no grades given at this stage)
CONTENT: QUANTITY, VARIETY, QUALITY OF INFORMATION
HOW TO IMPROVE:

CONTENT: CRITICAL THINKING; OBJECTIVITY
HOW TO IMPROVE:

CONTENT: APPLICATION OF THEORY
HOW TO IMPROVE:

FORMAT AND STRUCTURE
HOW TO IMPROVE:

REFERENCING
HOW TO IMPROVE:

MGT5A1 CW1 Written Report Marking scheme – Formative version
Note: All of the criteria need to be addressed effectively. For the purposes of marking in the summative version we have allocated 20 marks for each one, but as in the real world you might fail the whole thing if, for example in terms of objectivity, you appear to be acting as an unquestioning, subjective fanatic for the company, rather than a neutral observer.
POOR                EXCELLENT
Content: Quantity, variety, quality of information     Poor quantity and variety of information, unreliable sources, lack of breadth and depth. Statements are flawed e.g.  unsupportable, illogical, inconsistent with others    Sufficient quantity and variety to make insights into the topic, some sources may be unreliable. No grossly flawed statements, perhaps some statements are flawed in a minor way    Fairly wide and deep range of information, fairly reliable sources, statements are usually without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others    Wide and deep range of information, mostly reliable sources, statements are mostly without flaws, mostly supported, mostly logical, mostly consistent with others    Very wide  and deep range of information, reliable sources, statements are entirely without flaws, supported, logical, consistent with others
Content: Critical thinking; Objectivity    Is entirely subjective, questions nothing, demonstrates little or no interest in going deeper. Little or no synthesis of ideas or sources    Demonstrates a basic ability to think objectively, questions some sources to a basic level, many sources still accepted on face value. Some very basic synthesis of ideas.    Demonstrates a fair ability to think objectively, not many sources are unquestioned, few are accepted at face value. Synthesis is a familiar concept    Demonstrates a very good ability to think objectively, most sources are questioned appropriately, only a few are accepted at face value. Synthesis is a very familiar concept    Is entirely objective (except where applicable, extremely well supported assertions)
Questions the sources automatically, demonstrates fluency in the topic.
Synthesizes extremely effectively
Content: Application of theory    Application of theory demonstrates little or no understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied    Major flaws in either understanding of the theory or the context may be present, but not both     No major flaws in understanding of the theory or the context, one or two minor flaws may be present. Demonstrates good understanding of the theory    No major flaws in understanding of the theory or the context, very few, very minor flaws may be present. Demonstrates very good understanding of the theory    Application of theory demonstrates excellent understanding of the principles and practice of the theory and of the scenario to which it is applied
Format and structure    Significant elements or combination missing e.g. no title + no contents + no headings + no author / date.
Looks very unprofessional.    Basic elements are in place (i.e. title, basic structure of introduction, main section and conclusions, and clear headings). A lack of other significant elements (names, dates, page numbers, contents, reference list etc) may fail it. Looks unprofessional    All basic elements in place, minor lapses are permitted, looks marginally professional    All basic elements in place, few lapses in other elements, looks fairly profession    Conforms perfectly to the requirements laid out, all elements in place and all very good quality, looks very professional
Referencing*    Poor or no references or citations    Identifiable references linking effectively to citations, appropriately (i.e. all and any ideas which are not from the student must be acknowledged). Limited range and quality of sources.    Identifiable references link well to citations.
Range of quality and variety of sources demonstrates some understanding of the field.    Most ideas from sources are effectively referenced and cited on the whole; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a good understanding of the field    Every idea not coming from the student is effectively referenced and cited; the range and variety of sources demonstrates a very comprehensive understanding of the field
*Students must avoid plagiarism: the use of ideas or text written by someone else (or submitted by the student him/herself for another purpose) without effective referencing. If a work contains plagiarised content the student may be given an automatic ‘0’ grade and/or further more severe penalties. Please see the Quality Handbook for more details on this.