Part 2 – HRD, Performance and Reward Management (Individual Assignment)
In this part of the project-based assignment, each student is asked to imagine they are a senior member of the human resource management function in your case study organisation (from Part 1) and each of you have been asked to individually investigate best practice in human resource management in the areas of managing high performers or under performers with a particular focus on performance management, human resource development and reward management.
The situation you have been asked to report on relates to the person that the organisation hired to fill the key vacancy your group reported on in the first part of this assignment. Your organisation hired a 31 year old and one month after they were appointed, their manager seeks your advice regarding what to do about them. Please choose one of the two following situations:
- ‘Under performer’. The new employee does not have the necessary competencies and/or attributes to perform at the required level. The manager is seeking your advice regarding what they need to do to help them improve their performance; or
- ‘High performer’. The new employee is clearly bored, not feeling challenged and indicating they might start looking for another job. The manager believes the employee could make an important contribution to the organisation so is seeking your advice about how to engage them and retain them.
In your report you will need to deal with the following as a minimum:
- What are the features of best practice in performance management?
- How the human resource development (HRD) function should integrate with the performance management function?
- What the specific issues surrounding the management of ‘under performers’ or the management of ‘high performers’ are that need to be taken into account in an effective performance management system and HRD function in the case study organisation?
- How the case study organisation’s reward management strategy might fit into the solution you offer and why?
- How in theory should the case study organisation’s human resource management practices (HRD, performance and reward management) support the firm’s corporate strategies?
Your report will need to make use of relevant research literature to support your determination of the best practice in performance management, HRD and reward management.
Part 2 of the Project-based assignment is worth 35 marks and it is an individual assignment.
As a guide the assignment should be no more than 2000 words with any attachments not counting towards the word limit.
It must involve the use of a minimum of twelve ‘peer reviewed’ journal articles (students are required to ensure all journals used are ‘peer reviewed’ otherwise they should not be included) and more than two scholarly texts including the Unit text.
|This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeIntroduction 10%
|10 to >8.4 Pts HD Introduction evident, context well explained and supported. Clear structure of the report outlined. 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Distinction Introduction evident, context well explained and supported. Structure of the report outlined. 7.4 to >6.4 Pts Credit Introduction evident, context clear and reasoning evident 6.4 to >5.0 Pts Pass Introduction evident, context defined, but more clarity required. 5 to >0 Pts Fail Poor or no introduction. Context not clear
|This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAnalysis of the key organisational issues (10%)
|10 to >8.4 Pts HD Excellent analysis and evaluation of ideas present. 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Distinction Very good analysis and evaluation of ideas present 7.4 to >6.4 Pts Credit Good level of analysis and evaluation evident, with little description 6.4 to >5.0 Pts Pass Some analysis and evaluation evident but still very descriptive 5 to >0 Pts Fail Little or no analysis or evaluation evident
|This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeUses a range of suitable academic resources to illustrate issues in HRM (25%)
|25 to >21.25 Pts HD Excellent range of relevant peer-reviewed academic literature is effectively utilised and synthesized with high levels of evaluation and analysis. Theory provides compelling rationale for recommendations and provides insight into next steps. Utilises at least 12 peer-reviewed journal articles and more than 3 scholarly texts. 21.25 to >18.0 Pts Distinction Wide range of relevant academic peer-reviewed literature is utilised and synthesized. A high level of evaluation and analysis is evident. Theory supports rationale for recommendations. Utilises at least 10 peer-reviewed journal articles and more than 3 scholarly texts. 18 to >16.0 Pts Credit Suitable and relevant peer-reviewed literature identified, evaluated and analysed. Central issues are addressed. Theory helps support rationale for recommendations. Utilises more than 8 peer-reviewed journal articles and at least 3 scholarly 16 to >12.5 Pts Pass Some suitable and relevant peer-reviewed literature identified with some discussion. Utilises at least 6 peer-reviewed journal articles and 2 scholarly texts 12.5 to >0 Pts Fail Literature lacking and/or inappropriate. Relevance unclear. Insufficient type and number of references (i.e. fewer than 6 peer-reviewed journal articles and 2 two relevant guideline material and/or scholarly texts).
|This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAnalysis, evaluation and application of theory to practice (30%)
|30 to >25.2 Pts HD Excellent analysis and evaluation of ideas present. Theories, ideas and practice are synthesized with new ideas being formulated. Thorough analysis results in recommendations that are appropriate for the relevant organisation 25.2 to >22.2 Pts Distinction Very good analysis and evaluation of ideas present. Theories and practice are discussed and synthesized to formulate new ideas. Analysis leads to recommendations that are mostly appropriate for the relevant organisation 22.2 to >19.2 Pts Credit Good level of analysis and evaluation evident, with little description. Some good synthesis of ideas and literature. Application of theory to practice adds clarity to the argument and underpins the work well. 19.2 to >14.7 Pts Pass Some analysis and evaluation evident but still very descriptive. No real synthesis of ideas and literature. Application of theory to practice adds little depth to the argument 14.7 to >0 Pts Fail Little or no analysis or evaluation evident, pure description and ‘lists’ from literature. No application of theory to practice
|This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReport conclusions (10%)
|10 to >8.4 Pts HD Clear and concise conclusions developing out of the work, clarifying and optimizing the arguments made. A clear call to action for the senior management team is evident 8.4 to >7.4 Pts Distinction Clear conclusions developing out of the work, clarifying and optimizing the arguments made 7.4 to >6.4 Pts Credit Clear conclusions developing out of the work and clarifying the overall outcomes. 6.4 to >5.0 Pts Pass Some conclusions but not well developed. Not acting as a synthesis of the work. 5 to >0 Pts Fail Poor or no conclusions
|This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReport presentation, style and layout (15%)
|15 to >12.6 Pts HD Excellent presentation, structure, and totally accurate and comprehensive referencing. 12.6 to >11.1 Pts Distinction Excellent presentation, structure and accurate referencing. 11.1 to >9.6 Pts Credit Good presentation, structure, and consistent, mostly accurate referencing. 9.6 to >7.35 Pts Pass Reasonable presentation and referencing. Adheres to the report checklist. Structure of the report needs to be tighter. 7.35 to >0 Pts Fail Not well presented, poor or no referencing, poor structure not in report format.
|Total points: 100