LO1 Demonstrate understanding of the application of theories, concepts and tools that contribute to understanding of management
Assignment Brief
|
Module Title and Code |
Management and Organisational Behaviour GBMT 4004 |
|
Component Number |
CW1 |
|
Component Weighting |
100% |
|
Assignment Title |
Component 1 Written Assignment- Individual Report |
|
Assignment Deadline |
Term 2- week 9 |
Contents
Assessment Details Component 1. 2
Assessment Description Component 1. 2
Assignment Guidelines. 3
Additional Assessment Requirements & Information. 5
Assessment Marking Descriptors. 6
Mitigating Circumstances. 8
Academic Misconduct 8
Marking and Feedback. 9
Assessment Details
Component 1: Written Assignment- (Individual Work)
|
Assessment Component List all separate components
|
Weigh- ting (%) |
Typical Indicative Assessment Tasks Where the component comprises more than one assessment task |
Assessment Type For each component double click in the box to see options. The options equate to the assessment types in table A2 |
Word Count Approx. word count where applicable
|
Submission Deadline |
Learning Outcomes |
|
Component 1 Written Assignment – |
100% |
Case Study |
Written Assignment |
1500 word (+/- 10%) |
Term 2- Week 9 – |
LO1, LO2, LO3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment Description
Component 1- Written Assignment- Case Study (Individual written Report)
|
Submission Format |
|
Report Format – 1500 words (+ or – 10%) - Microsoft word document
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes |
|
LO1 Demonstrate understanding of the application of theories, concepts and tools that contribute to understanding of management LO2 Understand the difference between the theoretically explained management skills and functions, and applications in real business settings LO3 Identify individual and team-related employee behaviours exhibited within the workplace |
|
Assignment Guidelines |
|
The most successful business leaders are ones that continuously look for ways and strategies to drive performance, not just through improving employee productivity, but also their workplace experience and job satisfaction. This can be achieved by understanding how employees interact with each other and management, as well as what motivates them. One way to do this is to study the interrelationship between individual employees, teams, and management to identify what sets the most effective workers apart. Organisational behaviour describes the behavioural dynamics that occur between groups and individuals in an organisational setting. The following five elements are key to studying organisation behaviour: Organisational Culture, Power, Motivation, Teams, and Leadership. As a newly employed operations manager, you are required to write a paper of 1,500 words. This paper should be aimed at Managers as well as the CEO and should cover the tasks set out below. Your choice of organisation should be agreed with your tutor during tutorials As a recently employed Operations Manager, you have been requested by the CEO to research into the organisation behaviour and produce a report about what you have observed and how the performance of individuals, teams and the whole organisation can be improved. Choose any organisation (those in work may use their organisation of employment) to research, discuss as a case study and present. The purpose of this report will be to establish the influence that organisational culture, power, motivation, team, and leadership have upon behaviour and performances within the organisation. You are required to apply models, theories and concepts learned to produce and submit a case study. To complete this report, you should complete the following tasks: Executive Summary Contents Page
|
Other elements not included in the word counts are Executive Summary, Front page, Contents page.
Each student must submit a copy of the business report on Canvas. If you do not, this will be considered as non-submission.
Word count: 1500 word (+/- 10%)
Additional Assessment Requirements & Information
- All assignments should be submitted through Turnitin. If you file will not upload, please ensure it is the correct size and if not, you must contact the Admin Team (admin@lcca.org.uk) BEFORE the assignment Deadline.
- Turnitin will review the assignment for levels of plagiarism and Academic Staff when marking will review this. Students who have been deemed as committing an academic offense including plagiarism or collusion will be subject to the Academic Misconduct policy.
- Any submissions made after the deadline will be classed as a non-submission unless you have approved mitigating circumstances (see section).
- All assignments will be given a mark out of 100. A pass mark will be 40 or above.
- Students who fail their first attempt will be offered a re-sit attempt where the mark of the assignment will be capped at 40% at the Board of Examiners.
- Students should submit a front cover page stating their name, student ID and all the group members if it is a group work
ASSESSMENT GRADING DESCRIPTORS: LEVEL 4
|
EXPERIMENTATION & INNOVATION |
||||||||
|
|
FAIL |
PASS |
||||||
|
Threshold Criteria |
0-29% |
30-39% |
40-49% |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-89% |
90-100% |
|
Knowledge of the |
Little to no |
Low knowledge of the |
Competent |
Satisfactory |
Good knowledge and |
Very good knowledge |
Excellent knowledge |
Exceptional |
|
underlying concepts, |
knowledge of the |
underlying concepts, |
knowledge of the |
knowledge of the |
understanding of |
and understanding of |
of underlying and |
knowledge of |
|
practices and |
underlying concepts, |
practical methods |
underlying concepts, |
underlying concepts, |
underlying concepts, |
concepts, practical |
secondary concepts |
underlying and |
|
principles associated |
practical methods |
and principles of the |
practical methods |
practical methods |
practical methods |
methods and |
and practical |
secondary concepts |
|
with their area of |
and principles of the |
area of study. |
and principles which |
and principles, if |
and principles |
principles |
methods and a |
and practical |
|
study. |
area of study. |
|
is sufficient to deal of |
sometimes balanced |
showing critical |
significantly beyond |
sophisticated |
methods, and a |
|
|
|
|
the area of study |
towards the |
insight |
what has been |
understanding, |
sophisticated |
|
|
|
|
|
descriptive rather |
|
taught. |
significantly beyond |
understanding, |
|
|
|
|
|
than the critical or |
|
|
the threshold |
significantly beyond |
|
|
|
|
|
analytical. |
|
|
expectation at this |
the threshold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
level (including |
expectation at this |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
awareness of ethical |
level and beyond |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
issues and |
what has been taught |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sustainability where |
(including awareness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
appropriate). |
of ethical issues and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sustainability where |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
appropriate). |
|
Evaluate the |
Little to no ability to |
Low ability to solve |
Competent ability to |
Satisfactory ability to |
Good problem- |
Very good problem- |
Excellent problem- |
Exceptional problem- |
|
appropriateness of |
solve problems |
problems and/or |
solve problems |
solve complex |
solving skills, |
solving skills with |
solving skills with |
solving skills with |
|
different approaches |
and/or make |
make decisions but |
related to their area |
problems, and |
selecting and |
clear evaluation and |
clear evaluation and |
sophisticated |
|
to solving problems |
decisions. |
with significant |
of study by applying a |
applying and testing a |
justifying their use of |
application of |
application of |
evaluation, selection |
|
related to their area |
|
limitations. |
range of methods. |
range of appropriate |
a wide-range of |
appropriate methods |
methods |
and application of |
|
of study or work |
|
|
|
methods and |
methods. |
|
|
methods. |
|
|
|
|
|
evaluating their use. |
|
|
|
|
|
RESEARCH & ANALYSIS |
||||||||
|
|
FAIL |
PASS |
||||||
|
Threshold Criteria |
0-29% |
30-39% |
40-49% |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-89% |
90-100% |
|
Shows an ability to evaluate and interpret underlying concepts within the context of the area of study |
Little to no evidence of ability to evaluate or interpret underlying concepts to support the area of study |
Low evidence of ability to evaluate or interpret underlying concepts to support the area of study |
Competent ability to evaluate or interpret underlying concepts and displays the ability to extract relevant points. |
Satisfactory ability to evaluate or interpret underlying concepts using established techniques accurately and can critically appraise academic sources. |
Good ability to evaluate or interpret underlying concepts using established techniques accurately and can critically evaluate academic sources. |
Very good ability to evaluate or interpret range of concepts using established techniques accurately and possesses a well- developed ability to critically evaluate a wide range of sources. |
Excellent ability to evaluate or interpret wide range concepts using established techniques accurately and possesses a well- developed ability to critically evaluate a wide range of sources. |
Exceptional ability to evaluate a range of concepts using established techniques accurately well beyond the usual range, together with critical evaluation, to advance work or direct arguments. |
|
Ability to present, evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative information, in order to develop lines of argument. |
Little to no argument and explanations are difficult to understand and are not supported by qualitative and quantitative information. |
Low level argument and explanations are weak and/or poorly constructed, and do not evidence use of qualitative and quantitative information. |
Competent argument, with some evaluation and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative information |
Satisfactory argument with supporting evidence and has demonstrated the ability to consider and evaluate a range of qualitative and quantitative information. |
Good coherent, substantiated arguments, as well as the ability to consider, evaluate and synthesise a range of qualitative and quantitative information. |
Very good coherent and well substantiated arguments which systematically considers and critically synthesises qualitative and quantitative information. |
Excellent argument which systematically considers and critically synthesises advanced qualitative and quantitative information. |
Exceptional argument with advanced critical insight and interpretation of complex qualitative and quantitative information. |
|
Make sound |
Little to no sources |
Low ability to select |
Competent selection, |
Satisfactory selection, |
Good critical |
Very good synthesis |
Excellent synthesis of |
Exceptional synthesis |
|
judgements in |
and judgements |
and evaluate reading |
evaluation and |
evaluation and |
selection and |
of a broad range of |
a broad range of |
of a broad range of |
|
accordance with basic |
considered with gaps |
and research to make |
commentary on |
commentary on |
evaluation of |
research, primary |
research, primary |
research and primary |
|
theories and |
in key understanding |
judgements in line |
reading, research and |
reading, research and |
research and primary |
sources, views and |
sources, views and |
sources to make |
|
concepts of their |
of key theories and |
with basic theories |
primary sources to |
primary sources, |
sources, usually |
information and |
information and |
insightful judgements |
|
subject(s) of study. |
concepts in their |
and concepts of their |
make judgements in |
sometimes beyond |
beyond the set range, |
integration to make |
integration to make |
in line with basic and |
|
|
subject of study. |
subject(s) of study |
line with basic |
the set range, to |
to make judgements |
judgements in line |
judgements in line |
advanced theories |
|
|
|
with over-reliance on |
theories and concepts |
make judgements in |
in line with basic |
with basic theories |
with basic theories |
and concepts in their |
|
|
|
set sources. |
of their subject(s) of |
line with basic |
theories and |
and concepts of their |
and concepts of their |
subject of study. |
|
|
|
|
study. |
theories and |
concepts of their |
subject(s) of study. |
subject(s) of study. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
concepts of their |
subject(s) of study. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
subject(s) of study. |
|
|
|
|
|
ENGAGING WITH PRACTICE |
||||||||||
|
|
FAIL |
PASS |
||||||||
|
Threshold Criteria |
0-29% |
30-39% |
40-49% |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-89% |
90-100% |
||
|
Appropriate |
Little to no technical, |
Low technical, |
Competent technical, |
Satisfactory technical, |
Good command of |
Very good technical, |
Excellent technical, |
Exceptional technical, |
||
|
technical, creative or |
creative or artistic |
creative or artistic |
creative or artistic |
creative or artistic |
highly-developed |
creative and/or |
creative and/or |
creative and/or |
||
|
artistic skills related |
skills in most, or key, |
skills related to their |
skills required for |
skills required for |
technical, creative |
artistic skills and |
artistic skills |
artistic skills |
||
|
to their area of study |
areas |
area of study. |
area of study. |
area of study. |
and/or artistic skills |
finesse in their |
|
|
||
|
or work |
|
|
|
|
|
selection and |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
application. |
|
|
||
|
REALISATION & COMMUNICATION |
|
|||||||||
|
|
FAIL |
PASS |
|
|||||||
|
Threshold Criteria |
0-29% |
30-39% |
40-49% |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-89% |
90-100% |
|
|
|
Communicate the |
Little to no clarity in |
Low clarity in the |
Competent |
Satisfactory |
Good communication |
Very good |
Excellent |
Exceptional |
|
|
|
results of their |
the expression of |
expression of ideas |
communication of |
communication of |
of information, ideas, |
communication of |
communication of |
communication of |
|
|
|
study/work |
ideas and/or unable |
and/or unable to |
information, ideas, |
information, ideas, |
problems and |
information, ideas, |
information, ideas, |
information, ideas, |
|
|
|
accurately and |
to convey meaning |
convey clear meaning |
problems and |
problems and |
solutions verbally, |
problems and |
problems and |
problems and |
|
|
|
reliably, and with |
verbally, visually |
verbally, visually |
solutions verbally, |
solutions verbally, |
visually and/or in |
solutions verbally, |
solutions verbally, |
solutions verbally, |
|
|
|
structured and |
and/or in writing. |
and/or in writing. |
visually, electronically |
visually and/or in |
writing. |
visually, electronically |
visually, electronically |
visually, electronically |
|
|
|
coherent arguments |
|
|
and in writing. |
writing. |
|
and in writing. |
and in writing. |
and in writing. |
|
|
|
PERSONAL & PROFESSIONAL CONNECTIVITY |
||||||||
|
|
FAIL |
PASS |
||||||
|
Threshold Criteria |
0-29% |
30-39% |
40-49% |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-89% |
90-100% |
|
Undertake further |
Little to no |
Low contribution |
Competent |
Satisfactory |
Good contributions |
Very good |
Excellent contribution |
Exceptional |
|
training and develop |
contribution to group |
to group activity |
contribution to |
contribution to group |
to group activity |
contribution to |
to group activity |
contribution to group |
|
new skills within a |
activity and/or |
and/or project |
group activity |
activity and/or project |
and/or project |
group activity |
and/or project work, |
activity and/or |
|
structured and |
project work which |
work which |
and/or project work |
work which develops |
work, with an |
and/or project work, |
with teamwork and |
project work, with |
|
managed |
develops new skills. |
develops new |
which develops new |
new skills. |
understanding of |
with exceptional |
some leadership |
teamwork and |
|
environment |
|
skills. |
skills. |
|
team roles and the |
teamwork and the |
taking responsibility |
leadership taking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
processes for the |
processes for the |
for the development |
responsibility for the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
development of |
development of new |
of new skills. |
development of new |
|
|
|
|
|
|
new skills. |
skills. |
|
skills. |
|
Qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of some personal responsibility. |
Little to no ability to manage learning and/or work without supervision. |
Low ability to manage learning and/or work without supervision. |
Competent ability to manage learning and work with minimal or no supervision. |
Satisfactory ability to systematically manage learning, and work without supervision. |
Good ability to systematically manage learning, and work without supervision. |
Very good ability to systematically manage learning, and work without supervision. |
Excellent ability to manage learning on own initiative, and work without supervision. |
Exceptional ability to manage learning on own initiative, and work without supervision. |
|
Little to no accurate use of terminology, with limited vocabulary and many errors in spelling, grammar and syntax. |
Low accurate use terminology, with many errors in spelling, vocabulary and syntax. |
Competent expression and style with appropriate vocabulary and errors in spelling, grammar and syntax which do not affect understanding. |
Satisfactory expression and style, with a range of vocabulary and some errors in spelling, grammar and syntax which do not affect understanding. |
Good expression and style with appropriate vocabulary with minimal errors in spelling, grammar and syntax. |
Very good expression and style with minimal errors in spelling, grammar and syntax. |
Excellent expression and style with minimal errors in spelling, grammar and syntax. |
Exceptional expression and style with no errors in spelling, grammar and syntax. |
|
|
Little to no basic numeracy or digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Low level of basic numeracy or digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Competent numeracy and digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Satisfactory numeracy and digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Good numeracy and digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Very good numeracy and digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Excellent numeracy and digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
Exceptional numeracy or digital literacy, hardware and software skills. |
|
Mitigating Circumstances
LCCA and UCA understand that in students’ lives, there can be situations that are unexpected and can impact on your ability to hand in your assignment. LCCA and UCA define these situations as mitigating circumstances, and these are exceptional, short-term events which are outside the student’s controland impact their ability to prepare for, submit or present themselves for an assessment by the given deadline.
If something happens close to your assessment deadline that is hindering your ability to submit, please collect a Mitigating Circumstances from the Admin Team and submit along with appropriate supporting evidence BEFORE the assessment deadline. Any forms submitted after this deadline will require additional evidence.
If approved, you will be given an extension to the assignment deadline without being penalised.
However, LCCA and UCA consider that students who submit or present themselves for assessment are, in doing so, declaring themselves fit to be assessed, and therefore mitigating circumstances will not be accepted.
Academic Misconduct
Academic Misconduct is defined as where a student gains or seeks to gain an advantage in an assessment by unfair or improper means. Academic Misconduct can include the following:
- Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. This is where a student present work which contained unacknowledged published work (words, thoughts, judgements, ideas, structures, images etc.) of another, or presents work that has been previously submitted for another unit or course, or at a different institution.
- Collusion. This is where a student work for assessment done in collaboration with another person(s) entirely as their own or collaborates with another student(s) on work which is subsequently submitted as entirely of the other students work.
- Examination Offenses. This is where a student takes unauthorised materials into an exam room, communicates, or attempts to communicate with another student during the exam, fails to comply with invigilators instructions, or breaches other exam regulations.
- Dishonest Practice. This can include using essay mills, submitting work not completed by yourself, offering bribes, seeking to obtain confidential information, making false declarations and falsifying transcripts and certification or other official documentation.
All assignments are checked for Academic Misconduct and students who have been found to commit an offense will be subject to the Academic Misconduct Policy and or the Student Disciplinary Procedures.
Artificial Intelligence (e.g., Chat GPT)
With reference to the use of AI Technologies, the UCA’s Academic Misconduct Policy defines plagiarism as - where a student presents work for assessment which contains the unacknowledged published or unpublished words, thoughts, judgements, ideas, structures or images of another person or persons. This includes material downloaded from digital sources and material obtained from third parties including online essay mills and AI applications.
To enhance student learning, enable students to explore new ideas and concepts; undertake effective research; and help with assessment planning, the University supports the appropriate use of AI technologies, though students should give serious consideration as to how they may choose to use such technologies within assessments they submit.
If a student uses AI technologies for any part of their assessment - planning, research, or content - they must:
- reference the AI tool used and the content obtained;
- apply quotation conventions where the text has not been altered;
- clearly identify paraphrased or summarised material; and outline the method and information gathered via the AI tool.
- explain how the AI content has been reused within the assessment. In such cases, the student will have acted with integrity and academic misconduct will not have been committed.
Although, it is important to acknowledge that grades are determined of by evidence of meeting learning objectives at a particular level of competency, not on repetition of AI generated content. If the University suspects that AI technologies have been used during the assessment process and submission, then it reserves the right to invite the student to attend a viva (oral examination) to explore the student’s understanding of their submission. If evidence of academic misconduct is found, then the case will be addressed in accordance with the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy.
Marking and Feedback
You should expect to receive you marks approximately 4 weeks after the assignment deadline.
To ensure fairness, and parity of marking. All assignments are first marked, and a sample are second marked, and internally verified by a tutor from UCA to ensure the marks are correct and the feedback is appropriate.
The marks also considered by an Internal Exam Board at LCCA to ensure due process has been followed and the Board of Examiners at UCA where marks are ratified.
All marks are PROVISIONAL until ratified by the Board of Examiners.
Your provisional grade and feedback will be made available to you on Turnitin on Canvas. Unless advised otherwise by your tutor.


