END OF QUESTIONS
Please see the case titled ‘Chester & Kent Craft Beer’ in the assignment forum on study desk. This case is applicable to both the Case Study and the examination at the end of the semester.
Assignment: Case Study
Description Marks out of Wtg (%) Due date
Case Study (2000 words) 40 40 3 January 2017
Please see the case titled ‘Chester & Kent Craft Beer’ in the assignment forum on study desk. This case is applicable to both the Case Study and the examination at the end of the semester. You are required to analyse this case and answer the questions below.
Important instructions:
A. The format of presenting the case study answers is indicated in the assignment questions below. Please note that neither a report format nor essay format is required; just follow the format and instructions in the assignment questions below. A general introduction and conclusion to the case study should not be included.
B. Word count: The word count is 2,000 words. A word count between 1,800 and 2,200 (10% +/- 2,000) is acceptable. If the word count is exceeded, only the first 2,200 words will be marked. The word count excludes the title page, words in the figures and tables and the List of References. In-text references are included in the word count.
C. Theory support: As indicated in the case study questions below, you are required to support your views with theory. To ensure depth and credibility of your work, you need to demonstrate that you read widely on the theory topic by including the views of a wide range of theory sources. Theory sources include scholarly journal articles researched through the USQ Library databases. The prescribed text (Grant et al. 2014) as well as the course readings must also be included as theory support. On postgraduate level it is expected that research include about fifteen journal articles (excluding the course readings and text).
D. References: Please note that information obtained from the case study should not be referenced as the case study is the base source of information for your assignment. If you use information from the course Study Book, you should find the original source (see List of references at the end of each module) and reference the original source of theory. All ideas and data presented in-text, must be referenced according to the Harvard AGPS method. The full reference of each source must be presented in the List of References at the end of your document. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard
AGPS method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
E. Marking criteria sheet: It is important that you read through the marking criteria when preparing your assignment to note the criteria that assignments will be evaluated against. Please insert a copy of this criteria sheet at the end of your document. Please insert a page break at the end of your assignment before copying the marking criteria sheet on the next page.
F. Submission: Only one document in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) can be submitted. Please make sure that you submit the correct file and the final version of your assignment. It creates unnecessary problems if you submit the wrong file and we have to reset your submission page.
G. The due date is Tuesday, 11:55 PM AEST, 3 January 2017 Penalties will be applied for late submission. Please see the USQ policy on assignment submission, Point 4.2.4 ‘Late submission of assignments’ http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/14749PL#4.2_Assignments. Extension to the due date can only be considered if the guidelines in the policy are followed.
H. If you have questions about the assignment, please post them on Case Study Discussion Forum on Study Desk. Even if you don’t have questions, it is important that you follow the discussions on this forum to make sure that you are on the right track with your responses to the case study questions.
Assignment questions:
After reading and analysing the case ‘Chester & Kent Craft Beer’ carefully, please respond to the following questions. Use the headings and subheadings as shown below to present your answers.
Title page
The USQ Cover sheet should not be included. The first page of your assignment must be a title page where the following information must be included:
• Assignment title
• Full name and student number
• Actual word count
• Email address or contact phone number (If there is a problem with your assignment, it is useful to have your details so that I can contact you).
Please present the title page as a separate page.
1. Summarise the Industry and Market Information (+/- 300 words)
Based on the information provided in the case, summarise the industry and market background for Chester & Kent Craft Beer. Present this in your own words and outline aspects such as the industry in general, current industry trends, competition in the industry, the state of the global market, state of the Australian market, and any other fact that might be relevant background that can be used in preparing future strategies.
2. Industry analysis: PESTEL Analysis (+/- 450 words)
2.1 Introduction
Explain what the PESTEL tool is used for and how it assists in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
2.2 Figure 1: PESTEL analysis
Draw the PESTEL framework as presented in your text, (Grant et al. 2014, p.115) and populate each block with data from the case, using bullet points. The six elements as well as the middle block, the industry environment, must be populated. Make sure that the reader understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying, one word in a bullet point may not be sufficient. For each element, identify a number of issues. The level of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each of the blocks.
2.3 Element narrative
In this section, each of the elements that you populated with case study facts must be discussed.
Explain how the environmental conditions might influence the organisation (Chester & Kent Tap House & Brewery) in the future and impact on future strategic planning. The overall industry environment (the middle block of PESTEL) must also be discussed in terms of the impact of the environmental conditions on suppliers, competitors and customers and how this impacts on future strategic planning. Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
3. Industry Analysis: Porter’s Five Forces (+/- 450 words)
3.1 Introduction
Explain what Porter’s Five Forces Framework is used for and how it assists in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
3.2 Figure 2: Porter’s five forces framework (extended version)
Draw ‘Porter’s Five Forces Framework Extended with Complements’ as presented in your text, (Grant et al. 2014, p.134) and populate each block with data from the case, using bullet points. Make sure that the reader understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying, one word in a bullet point may not be sufficient.
Read Grant et al. (2014, pp. 121 – 134) for information about what each force entails. Note that the case study facts should be included here. For each element, identify a number of issues if applicable. The level of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each of the blocks.
3.3 Forces narrative
In this section, each of the forces that you populated with case study facts must be discussed. Explain how the micro environmental conditions (industry conditions) might influence the organisation (Chester & Kent Tap House & Brewery) in future and impact on future strategic planning. In the middle block, the Industry competitors, the rivalry among existing firms must be discussed. Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
4. Industry Analysis: Key Success Factors (KSFs) (+/- 450 words)
4.1 Introduction
Explain what KSFs are and how they are used in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
4.2 Table 1: Key Success Factors
Draw up a KSF Table similar to Table 4.2 (Grant et al. 2014, p.145) for the Craft Beer Industry.
Identify the external forces impacting on this industry, list the likely industry responses as a whole (how the whole industry is currently responding to these forces) and then list Key Success Factors for the industry. These are the characteristics that companies in this industry should have if they want to be successful and competitive. Pay special attention to how you formulate these success factors (see Table 4.2 in Grant et al. 2014 p.145 for examples) as they play an important role in developing a range of strategies going forward.
4.3 KSF narrative
From the list of KSFs that you identified in the table, choose five (5) of the most important key success factors for the industry. Explain why you have chosen each of these KSFs as most important in the industry; why are these factors critical in the Craft Beer industry?
Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
5. Discuss the value of the rational models (such as PESTEL, Five Forces and KSFs) in contemporary strategic planning. (+/- 350 words)
The Module 2 Readings address the use of strategic tools in modern strategic planning. In this section, discuss the value and role of rational models in practice. Provide your personal view (supported) about the issue, as to whether these strategic tools should be used or not in strategy development.
In Section 2.3.2 Strategic Tools and their Use in Practice of your Study Book (Module 2, p.11) the use of ‘technical rational’ models is addressed. Please do not copy information from the study book into your answer in this section. It is important that you read the views of the authors of the readings (Module 2 Readings) and develop your own opinion about the usefulness of these models in practice. In this section, additional theory sources are not required, only the relevant Module 2 readings should be used as theory to support your discussion. Remember to apply in-text referencing (and of course full references in the List of References) when you present the views obtained from these sources.
Conclude with a final assessment in regard to forecasted demand for Chester & Kent Craft Beer including projections for 2021 based on your strategy selection.
6. List of References
Include here a list of full references of all the in-text references that you included in your discussions. The case study should not be referenced here but your text and readings that you referenced should appear here. Make sure that you follow the correct Harvard AGPS method of referencing. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard AGPS method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide . The Communication Skills Handbook by Summers and Smith (any of the editions) is also a very valuable source of information for referencing and assessment writing in general.
Marking Criteria Sheet (see next 3 pages)
The marking criteria below will be used to evaluate your assignment against. Please make sure that you read through the criteria sheet to see the expectations on various grade levels per section of the Case Study questions.
Please insert a copy of the full criteria sheet into your assignment. This should be done by inserting a page-break after the List of References, then copy-and-paste each of the 3 pages into your own document to display as presented below. Thank you for your help in this!
Please post questions about the Case Study in the Study Desk forum titled ‘Case Study Discussion Forum’.
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up TOT
AL
SUMMARISE
INDUSTRY
AND
MARKET
INFORMATI
ON Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question and differentiation between industry and market is not clear.
Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
High degree of copy and paste from case. Basic to fair understanding of question.
May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Included some irrelevant material.
Some degree of copy and paste from case. Sound understanding of
the question demonstrated in the answer to the question.
Clear distinction between industry and market information.
Good selection of information presented in a structured way. Strong understanding of the question.
Answers all parts of the question; included a broad selection of relevant industry and market information.
Well-constructed answer, argument is clear and reinforces important key issues. Unequivocal understanding of question.
Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
No irrelevant content.
Excellent development and flow of argument.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
PESTEL ANALYSIS:
INTRODUCT
ION
No introduction or introduction without theory support. Prescribed text not used.
Introduction does not explain the link with strategy development. Basic introduction, only text used as theory support. Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation of link with strategy development. Sound introduction, some original sources used as theory support. Sound explanation of link with strategy development. Clear introduction demonstrating research of the topic. Link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly. Original sources of theory applied. Excellent introduction, concise, clear and demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the topic. A range of original sources of theory applied
PESTEL ANALYSIS:
FRAMEWOR
K No framework presented or presented incorrectly. No case facts only theory as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data. Irrelevant data included.
Elements populated with only theory, no case study data. Poor selection of case data.
Misunderstood the requirements.
Insufficient case analysis. Framework is presented with bullet points from case data but covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete.
Elements populated insufficiently. Mostly theory, insufficient case study data. Basic level of case analysis. Framework is presented with relevant bullet points with case data; most of the important issues are included.
Elements are sufficiently populated with theory and case data, satisfactory level of case analysis. Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstrating a deep level of case analysis. Excellent population of the framework with important and relevant case study data. Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent analysis of sources.
PESTEL ANALYSIS:
NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.
No references. No integration of theory and application. No theory, only application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of structure and progression of argument.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. Sound understanding of
the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of theme.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component. Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of argument.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent critical analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 – 9
CRITERIA FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION TOT
Less than 50% 50%–64% 65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up AL
FIVE No introduction or introduction Basic introduction, only Sound introduction, Clear introduction Excellent introduction,
FORCES: without theory support. text used as theory some original sources demonstrating concise, clear and
INTRODUCT Prescribed text not used. support. Prescribed text used as theory support. research of the topic. demonstrating a deep level
ION Introduction does not explain the not effectively used. Basic Sound explanation of Link with strategy of understanding of the
link with strategy development. explanation of link with link with strategy development is well topic. A range of original strategy development. development. researched and sources of theory applied.
presented clearly.
Original sources of
theory applied.
FIVE No framework presented or Framework is presented Framework is presented Framework is Excellent population of the FORCES: presented incorrectly. No case with bullet points from with relevant bullet populated with framework with important FRAMEWOR facts only theory as bullet points. case data but covers only points with case data; relevant and and relevant case study data.
K Elements not populated with case some issues, analysis is most of the important significant case study Original material is the result data. Irrelevant data included. incomplete. issues are included. data demonstrating a of in depth investigation.
deep level of case Excellent analysis of analysis. sources.
Elements populated with only Elements populated Elements are theory, no case study data. Poor insufficiently. Mostly sufficiently populated selection of case data. theory, insufficient case with theory and case Misunderstood the requirements. study data. Basic level of data, satisfactory level Insufficient case analysis. case analysis. of case analysis.
FIVE Lacks a demonstrated Basic to fair understanding Sound understanding of Strong understanding Unequivocal understanding
FORCES: understanding of the question. of question. May not have the question of the question. of question. Excellent
NARRATIVE Not all issues relevant to answered all the issues demonstrated in the Answers all parts of analysis of relevant issues question have been answered. relevant to the question. answer to the question. the question, pertaining to the question. Misunderstood the case study Might have some patches All issues were including discussions
focus. Included mostly irrelevant of irrelevant material. addressed. for each of the
material. elements. Excellent critical analysis
and discussion.
Some evidence of Good structure and
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no structure and progression progression of theme. Very good structure,
logical progression of argument. of argument. clear arguments and Original material is the result progression of of in depth investigation.
Original material argument. Excellent critical analysis of No references. No integration of Included some additional obtained and integrated sources. References are theory and application. No references although in most instances. relevant and clearly theory, only application. Only integration of all or some Clear evidence of integrated. theory, no application. Course of these references need wider reading.
materials and/or prescribed text improvement. Citations Sources of theory References are well not used. Only textbook no other were mostly from the text. include scholarly journal integrated into the research. High degree of Included some irrelevant articles to support the discussions. Good
paraphrasing or direct quotes. sources (web pages, study theory component. balance of text, Included irrelevant sources (web books, articles from journals, etc. Critical pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support analysis of sources. magazines) to support theory theory component. component.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 – 9
KSF: No introduction or introduction Basic introduction, only Sound introduction, Clear introduction Excellent introduction,
INTRODUCT without theory support. text used as theory some original sources demonstrating concise, clear and
ION Prescribed text not used. support. Prescribed text used as theory support. research of the topic. demonstrating a deep level Introduction does not explain the not effectively used. Basic Sound explanation of Link with strategy of understanding of the link with strategy development. explanation of link with link with strategy development is well topic. A range of original strategy development. development. researched and sources of theory applied.
presented clearly.
Original sources of
theory applied.
KSF No framework presented or Framework is presented Framework is presented Framework is Excellent population of the FRAMEWOR presented incorrectly. No case with bullet points from with relevant bullet populated with framework with important
K facts only theory as bullet points. case data but covers only points with case data; relevant and and relevant case study data. Elements not populated with case some issues, analysis is most of the important significant case study Original material is the result data. Irrelevant data included. incomplete. issues are included. data demonstrating a of in depth investigation.
Elements populated with only Elements populated Elements are deep level of case Excellent analysis of theory, no case study data. Poor insufficiently. Mostly sufficiently populated analysis. sources. selection of case data. theory, insufficient case with theory and case
Misunderstood the requirements. study data. Basic level of data, satisfactory level
Insufficient case analysis. case analysis. of case analysis.
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up TOT
AL
KSF:
NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.
No references. No integration of theory and application. No theory, only application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of structure and progression of argument.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. Sound understanding of
the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of theme.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component. Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of argument.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent critical analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 – 9
VALUE OF
RATIONAL
MODELS Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Study book materials copied. No evidence that the readings for Module 2 were studied. Did not conclude with a clear opinion about the value of the models. Arguments not supported with theory from the readings. No theory references (readings).
Unsupported personal opinions. Basic to fair understanding of question. Evidence that some of the readings were studied.
Some valid arguments offered, supported by theory.
Concluded with opinion about the value of the models. Some arguments supported by theory from readings. Sound understanding of the question. Evidence that all of the readings for Module 2 were studied.
Valid arguments built on the views presented in the readings. Good theory support.
Concluded with a valid opinion about the value of the models. All arguments supported by theory from the readings. Strong understanding of the question. Clear critical opinion justified from the theory.
Very good arguments built on the views presented in the readings. Very good theory support.
Very good conclusion about the value of the models, supported by theory from the readings. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent critical opinion justified from the theory.
Excellent arguments, clear evidence of understanding of the issues addressed in the readings.
Excellent conclusions, supported by theory from the readings.
MARK /5 2.5 2.5 – 3 3 – 3.5 3.5 – 4 4 – 5
RESEARCH/
REFERENCI
NG/
PRESENTAT
ION No research of topics. No scholarly journal articles. Only company websites.
Did not conform to Harvard referencing.
Not adhering to assignment requirements. No title page. Did not follow the required structure. Excessive spelling, grammatical errors; poor syntax. Poorly presented; A lot of typing errors.
Over or under 10% of word limit Included some scholarly journal articles although insufficient number is insufficient. Citations were mostly from the text.
Harvard referencing techniques varies.
Some instances in which the assignment requirements and structure were not followed. Fair understanding of rules of grammar and construction. Some spelling /typing errors. Within word count. Satisfactory number of scholarly journal articles. Sufficient research.
Only minor errors in Harvard referencing – in-text or List of references
Adhere to assignment requirements and structure. Sound level of fluency in writing; (may have one or two awkward sentences). No
obvious errors in grammar or syntax. Well presented. Within word count Clear evidence of wider reading.
Meets Harvard referencing protocols.
Clear and fluent writing. Professional presentation.
Within word count.
Uses dynamic, unique material beside relatively standard material to develop theoretical concepts. Excellent research.
Accurate Harvard referencing no errors.
Well-constructed and crafted piece of work. A pleasure to read. Professional presentation. Within word count.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
TOTAL/40:
Write a 3000 word essay in which you: • Use an organisation that is or has been in the news during the past two years (work-related learning) and identify an ethical dilemma faced by that organisation as an example.
Length: 3000 words
Due date 3rd feburary
Task
Write a 3000 word essay in which you:
• Use an organisation that is or has been in the news during the past two years (work-related learning) and identify an ethical dilemma faced by that organisation as an example.
• Apply at least two theoretical concepts from managerial ethics to examine this dilemma critically.
• Go on to examine and critically evaluate the relationship between ethics, leadership and decision making.
• In conclusion, reflect critically on how leaders may ensure organisational decisions are made ethically.
• Academic and professional communication skills: You must follow an essay structure that is at a minimum an introduction; a main body that outlines the argument, analyses the material you have researched and assesses this according to the guidelines above; and a conclusion.Your writing style must follow professional literacy: Citations and a final reference list that follows the APA 6 guidelines accurately; the quality of writing and presentation: accurate mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation etc.); use respectful language to discuss all people; avoid emotive language; employ inclusive, non-sexist language. Use a minimum of ten (10) citations/references
In short, you will need to demonstrate an understanding and critical analysis of the theories surrounding the topic, as well as evaluating the practical reality in the workplace. Please refer to relevant academic literature and source materials, as well as drawing upon your knowledge of the organisation.
Rationale
This assignment is designed to address Learning Objectives 1 to 5 (see above) by :
• familiarising students with the various theories relating to organisations and organisational planning and control.
• encouraging students to discern the strengths and weaknesses of the wide array of theoretical contributions;
• encouraging students to use empirical evidence to support their arguments.
Marking criteria
Criteria? Standards? LO Mark High Distinction (38.25-45) Distinction (33.75-37.8) Credit(29.25-33.3 ) Pass (22.5- 28.8) Fail (00.0 -22.05)
An organisation that is or has been in the news during the past two years (work-related learning) is used to identify an ethical dilemma an example.
/2 Highly appropriate organisation is Identified that provides an outstanding and critical basis for further examination. Identification of organisation provides a detailed and accurate basis from which to develop further examination. Identification of organisation provides a sufficiently detailed basis for further examination. Identification of organisation is underdeveloped, inhibiting deeper examination. Identification of organisation is inaccurate, inadequate, insufficient, and unclear.
At least two theoretical concepts from managerial ethics are applied to examine this dilemma critically 3 /8 Identifies, explains, applies and critiques major alternative theoretical concepts with depth, detail and clarity. Identifies, applies and critiques major alternative theoretical concepts clearly and accurately. Identifies, explains & applies important alternative theoretical concepts but occasionally lacks clarity or accuracy. Critique is limited. Identifies, explains & applies alternative theoretical concepts but with some limitations, inconsistency and/or inaccuracy. Superficial critique . Limited grasp of alternative theoretical concepts; lacking in critical examination.
Examination and critical evaluation of how ethics, leadership and decision making are related 1
2 /15 Clearly demonstrates a high level ability to synthesise theory and practice using readings and/or alternative perspectives.
Able to interpret the relationship between theory and practice accurately. Offers appropriate and relevant examples to support line of argument. Able to identify the relevant relationships between theory and practice. Offers some evaluation, but occasionally lack consistency. Demonstrates an adequate level of relating theory to practice; and some consideration provided of alternative perspectives.
Descriptive. Reproduces information from lectures and readings. The relationship between theory and practice underdeveloped and is poorly argued.
Conclusions reflect critically on how leaders may ensure organisational decisions are made ethically. 5 /10 Shows deep critical reflection of and engagement with leadership and ethical decision-making.
A strong and reasoned argument is made to support the conclusions. Shows detailed critical reflection of and engagement with leadership and ethical decision-making.
A strong argument is made to support the conclusions. Shows a degree of critical reflection of and engagement with leadership and ethical decision-making. Notes alternative perspectives and provides examples where necessary to support conclusions. Examples of alternative perspectives are provided; reflection is superficial rather than meaningful. Shows a basic level of engagement with leadership and ethical decision-making. Engagement is minimal. Conclusions are reached providing no or little evidence. Shows scant engagement with leadership and ethical decision-making.
Academic and professional communication skills:
Follows an essay structure.
Writing style must follow professional literacy: Citations and a final reference list that follows the APA6 guidelines accurately; the quality of writing and presentation: accurate mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation etc.); use respectful language to discuss all people; avoid emotive language; employ inclusive, non-sexist language. Minimum of ten (10) citations/references used.
/10 Structure uses clear and concise topic and linking sentences, and connected paragraphs. Sophisticated level of professional language achieved. Paragraphs succinct with excellent ability with grammar, vocabulary and spelling. Impeccable referencing in APA6. Outstanding presentation.
Structure that uses paragraphs and sentences. Extensive use of topic and linking sentences. Leads the reader through the argument in a clear and logical way. Follows guidelines comprehensively. Professional literacy well demonstrated. Substantial ability with grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Ample relevant, accurate referencing using APA6. Clear structure. Adequate use of sentences and paragraphs. Guidelines followed clearly. Level of professional language used. Paragraphs are succinct. Generally good ability with grammar, and spelling; appropriate vocabulary. Significant but limited referencing. Structure is apparent, fair use of topic and linking sentences and paragraphs. Some of the guidelines followed. Only general level of professional language achieved. Adequate level of control over grammar, fair ability with spelling and vocabulary. Referencing lacks specificity with some inaccuracies. No apparent structure. Poor sentence and paragraph construction. Guidelines not followed. Language not professional, inclusive or respectful. Paragraphs off the point. Inadequate ability with grammar, poor vocabulary and spelling. Insufficient and/or inaccurate referencing.
Total marks:
/45
Comments:
Presentation
Presentation requirements are as follows :
• The Assessment must adopt an essay structure and not that of a management report.
• Writing style must follow professional literacy.
• Citations and a final reference list mist be included that follow the APA6 citation guidelines accurately.
• The quality of writing and presentation: accurate mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation etc.); use respectful language to discuss all people; avoid emotive language; employ inclusive, non-sexist language.
• Minimum of ten (10) citations/references used.
Requirements
For this assessment APA referencing format is required.
Answer must be in the following format.
Eassy structure
1. Introduction (200 words approx)
i) Explain the situation you are about to discuss (e.g. firms experiencing ethical dilemmas)- cite academic sources
ii) Give definitions of the most important concepts and introduce theories for managerial ethics(3-4 sentences)
iii) Introduce the company on which you will show how ethical concepts have (or have not) been applied – briefly describe the ethical dilemma – use citation.
iv) State your thesis (which is section 4 of your assignment) i.e. what you understand companies must implement to ensure they make ethical decisions – use cititation
2) Discussion
400 words: discuss the company, and the ethical dilemma and the full impact of the ethical dilemma (use industry citation,)
400 words: discuss one theoretical concept of managerial ethics – then apply it to your company (does it show that your firm has acted ethically or not), Evaluate this from a number of points of views( managerial. Stakeholders etc) – use academic citation.
400 words : Discuss second theoretical concept of managerial ethics( as above.)
400 words: Discuss how behavior guided by managerial ethis leads to a positive climate for stakeholders, referring to ethical decision making ( give a definition) – use academic cititation.
400 words: Apply such positive climate to your company and explain why that was not the case in your firm – refer to leadership etc,
450 words: Evaluate different leadership styles and their consequences (include any leadership styles that held negative impact on your firm) – use academic citations.
500 words: Discuss in detail how firms can create a workable ethical environment in which dilemmas (such as that in your firm ) cannot occur and process of ethical decision making are firmly embedded.
3) Summary: 150 – 200 words
Summarise each section of your discussion and justify your thesis ( this essay has argued that………). Conclude with a repetition of the measures that firms must implement to ensure they practice ethics in an atmosphere of organizational justice.
Research Proposal(3000-3500 words) Title: Use of cluster analysis (or data mining) to identify the impact of social media in online marketing strategies. Abstract(just 100-150 words)
Research Proposal(3000-3500 words)
Title: Use of cluster analysis (or data mining) to identify the impact of social media in online marketing strategies.
Abstract(just 100-150 words)
Should include:
• Very short background
• Research question / problem
• Why it is important to solve the problem?
• What kind of methodology (no detail)
• Who will be benefitted by this?
• Conclusion
Introduction
(Longer version of abstract)
Should include:
• Background
• Problem statement(3-4 sentences)
• Elaborate research question
• Significance
• Methodology
• Result
• Structure of rest of the report (like: in next section we will be talking about literature review…)
Literature Review
Analysis and synthesis
Methodology
• Connection between variables
• Data collection methods
• Research designs
• Ontology
• Epistemology
• Quantitative / qualitative
• Population / sample size
• Participants
• Survey / interviews/ questionnaire
• Interpretations of results(techniques)/ thematic analysis/ grounded theory
Discussion / result (future implications)
Conclusion
References
• Range of articles: books, journals, etc)
• Range of yrs: last 10-15 yrs should also be included with new ones
• Variety of books
No comments:
Post a Comment