| Module code and title: | MG411 Introduction to People Management | Module leader: | |
| Assignment No. and type: | CW1 – Individual Research Portfolio | Assessment weighting: | 100% |
| Submission time and date: | Target feedback time and date: |
| Assignment task | |
| This is an individual research-based portfolio assignment targeting 3 strategic People Management areas in a case study scenario. A 2000 word word-processed portfolio should be prepared for this submission. | |
| This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following module learning outcomes: | |
| LO 1 | Demonstrate an understanding of the knowledge, skills and behaviours to be an effective people manager |
| LO 2 | Identify and evaluate key HR processes which underpin the performance management of people at work |
| LO 3 | Demonstrate an understanding of contemporary issues facing line managers relating to people management |
| Task requirements | |
| Choosing an organisation from the list below, research how the areas of 1) Leadership and Management; 2) Training and Development; and 3) Talent Management underpin Performance Management at your chosen organisation. NHSNissanEasy Jet Special consideration must be given to the following: The operational context of the organisationRelevant applicable theoretical modelsRecommendations with a focus on the required knowledge, skills and behaviour needed by management to deliver on these 3 key areas. Notes for Guidance The portfolio should be written in a report format and comprise of 3 clear sections. You are also expected to conclude with relevant and appropriate recommendations, summarising ways forward for your organisation in relation to the 3 areas.Only ONE final conclusion is required at the end of the portfolio to conclude the portfolio.An appendices is expected and must include supporting research documents or snippets of relevant information pertaining to your portfolio content.A reference list AND bibliography is expected, with more than 10 citations in each list. These must demonstrate that the student has deployed a range of literature sources e.g. books; journals; articles; company documents; internet, web sites etc. | |
| Referencing and research requirements | |
| Please reference your work according to the Harvard style as defined in Cite Them Right Online (http://www.citethemrightonline.com). This information is also available in book form: Pears, R. and Shields, G. (2016) Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 10th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Copies are available via the University library. | |
| How your work will be assessed | |
| Your work will be assessed on the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning outcomes for this assignment (see above) and against other key criteria, as defined in the University’s institutional grading descriptors. If it is appropriate to the format of your assignment and your subject area, a proportion of your marks will also depend upon your use of academic referencing conventions. This assignment will be marked according to the grading descriptors for Level 4. | |
| Submission details | |
| You are reminded of the University’s regulations on academic misconduct, which can be viewed on the University website: https://bucks.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/9546/Academic-Misconduct-Policy.pdf. In submitting your assignment, you are acknowledging that you have read and understood these regulationsPlease also note that work that there are no provisions for late submissions. | |
| Criteria | % | 70% + | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | Fail |
| Research Skills | 10 | Evidence of wide research using primary and secondary research and an imaginative range of sources. | Evidence of good research. Some primary and secondary research though more limited in range. | Evidence of solid research though limited to secondary research but from a range of prescribed texts and sources. | Some evidence of research though perhaps limited to secondary research. | Little evidence of any research; little reference to appropriate secondary literature. |
| Knowledge and understanding | 20 | Excellent critical discussion of key concepts and underpinning theory supported through extensive secondary research findings. | Demonstrates a thorough understanding of HR models and key concepts through discussion using good secondary research. | Demonstrates some understanding of HR models with a range of secondary research utilised to support the discussion. | Demonstrates a limited view and reference to models and concepts is weak. Limited use of secondary research to underpin discussion. | Superficial understanding demonstrated through minimal secondary research and lack of integration of models and concepts. |
| Analysis and application | 40 | Excellent analysis of the models and concepts with an extensive comparison to the NHS. Excellent explanation and evaluation. | Good analysis of the models and concepts with a good comparison to the NHS. Good explanation and some evaluation. | Some analysis of the models and concepts with some comparison to the NHS. Effort made to explain though tended to describe. | Presents partial analysis of the models and concepts with minimal comparison to the NHS. Limited attempt to explain; largely descriptive. | Limited or no analysis of the models and concepts with superficial comparison to the NHS. No effort to explain or evaluate. |
| Evaluation | 20 | Excellent evaluation of the impact of different models on organisational practice. Reflective and detailed evaluative conclusions and recommendations. | Good evaluation of the impact of different models on organisational practice. Good evaluative conclusions and recommendations. | Some evaluation of the impact of different models on organisational practice. Conclusions drawn and recommendations made, but less convincing. | Limited evaluation of the impact of different models on organisational practice. Limited conclusions drawn or recommendations made. | Fails to address all parts of the task – key issues not identified, conclusions inappropriate. No recommendations made. |
| Assignment parameters | 10 | Brief met fully. Within word count. Clearly written and presented. Professional style, structure and referencing. | Within word count. Meets brief fully Clearly written and presented. Logical structure and good attempt to reference material. | Sometimes writing style and structure unclear. Referencing sometimes incomplete. | Poor structure and presentation. Problems with writing style. Sources not fully referenced. | Brief not fully met. Far too long or too short. Unclear structure and poor presentation. Inappropriate referencing. |
Get expert help for MG411 Introduction to People Management and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
