Referral Coursework Information Sheet To be supplied to students when they receive the coursework assignment task Unit Co-ordinator: Janice Johnson Unit Name: Leading and Managing People Unit Code: SHR012-6 Title of Coursework: Referral Assessment 1: Employee Engagement % weighting of final unit grade: 50% Feedback details The university policy is that you will receive prompt feedback on your work within 15 working days of the submission date. Exceptionally where this is not achievable (for example due to staff sickness) you will be notified as soon as possible of the revised date and the reasons behind the change. Submission Date: 27 th April 2017 by noon Oman time Feedback Date: 18 th May 2017 Details of how to access the feedback: Individual feedback via BREO Assignments On-line. SHR012-6 2 Referral Work Leading and Managing People (SHR012-6) Aim: To develop a critical awareness of current factors required for leading and managing people effectively for sustained organisational economic performance, competitiveness and prosperity. Learning Outcomes: To be able to  Demonstrate critical knowledge and understanding around key and contemporary debates about theory and practice in the specific field of employee engagement.  Evaluate and analyse any given workplace scenario relating to effective people performance and management within the organisational context;  Diagnose and identify appropriate solutions to any issues or problems that will limit optimum work performance or affect the application and utilisation of worker capability. Context: Your Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has just returned from a conference where h/she attended a presentation on engagement. The speakers, from a variety of organisations in the public and private sector, presented case studies detailing the organisational benefits that they had received from the engagement strategies that they had introduced. Although each speaker seemed credible, it appeared that what was meant by the term engagement differed from speaker to speaker. Furthermore, each organisation seemed to measure engagement in a different way and report different outcomes. Although still very interested in how engagement can benefit your organisation, your CEO has asked you to undertake some research in order to understand what engagement is and whether it really does have the reported benefits of improving performance. H/she would like to know more about what the organisation can do to change levels of engagement. Your Task: Within your own organisation (or one with which you are familiar), draw on relevant research evidence and organisational practice to produce a short report of approximately 2000 words addressed to your organisation’s Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, that: 1. Critically explore and explain the differences between employee engagement, non- engagement and disengagement. 2. Critically analyse how each of these areas are manifested in your organisation and how they are managed to ensure a contribution to organisational performance. 3. Makes recommendations for changes in your organisation to achieve high levels of employee engagement in your organisation. SHR012-6 3 Assignment Guidance Section / Title Details / Guidance University coversheet Include name, student ID number, unit title and code, assessment title, date of submission. Title page Title of your report. Address (to/from) and date the report. Contents Page Include page numbers. Introduction (Around 200 words). Short introduction to the report setting out what the aims and objectives of the report are, what the report will cover and why. You may want to provide a very brief overview of your organisation at this stage Literature Review (Task 1, around 800 words) Using relevant academic literature or practitioner-orientated material for support, briefly analyse the theoretical concept underpinning engagement, non-engagement and disengagement, explaining what it is and why engagement is such a ‘hot topic’ in management circles. Discussion (Task 2, around 600 words) Consider the existence and impact of employee engagement, non- engagement and dis-engagement on your organisation and how it affects the business performance. Conclusions and recommendations (Task 3, around 400 words) This section should initially answer your report objectives and draw together the main points from your analysis of literature and other discussion about your organisation. It summarises what has been learned from undertaking this research. It should also begin to weigh up the options available to the organisation and what would impede implementation of further action. It should reach an overall conclusion as to the impact of engagement, non- engagement and dis-engagement on your organisation and begins to identify the way forward. No new information should be presented in the conclusions. Make a considered initial list of no more than four relevant recommendations for improving engagement based upon your conclusions, clearly stating how they can add value to the organisation. Reference List A list of the third-party sources you have consulted and which are cited directly in the text. All these sources should be properly identified. Harvard style (see the Learning Resources website: lrweb.beds.ac.uk/help/guide-to- ref). Appendices Lengthy appendices are not necessary and must be discouraged. You may include extra relevant background information (no more than a page) regarding your organisation if not already in the introduction. Word Limit 2000 words +/- 10% (not including contents page, reference list and appendices) Submission Deadline for submission is: 27 th April 2017 by noon Oman time You should submit your report electronically via BREO Assignments on-line. Assessment Criteria As illustrated on pages 4-5. Good Academic Practice Please see appendix A at the end of this brief for guidance on this issue. SHR012-6 4 Marking Guidelines Mark Band: Capped at 40% Literature Review The student demonstrates adequate understanding of the knowledge of alternative definitions of ‘engagement’. Adequate knowledge of the subject matter and adequate attempts at description which may or may not identify similar concepts such as ‘involvement’, ‘participation’ and ‘commitment’ may be demonstrated. Adequate knowledge and analysis of behaviours and evidential signs for engagement such as organisational citizenship and discretionary behaviour may be adequately identified or demonstrated. The differences between engagement, non-engagement and disengagement may be identified or even adequately described. The student undertakes an adequate but highly descriptive review of the research linking engagement with organisational behaviour. Problems with identifying cause-effect relationships are may be evidenced, though significant gaps may exist. Adequate attempts may have been made to disentangle the reality from the rhetoric. Evidence based argument is quite narrowly demonstrated, illustrating adequate to threshold understanding of theory and/or organisational practice. Discussion The evaluation is adequate, adopts a descriptive approach and largely relates any theory used to practice in a superficial and descriptive application to a specific organisation. Recommendations Some recommendations have been offered but may be loosely based on some evaluation and analysis. Recommendations are adequate and may be just about capable of some attempts at implementation in this organisational context. Presentation and Persuasion The assignment is of an adequate standard. Concepts are not always expressed in a clear and systematic manner. There is quite limited referencing. Mark Band: 35-39 (Marginal Fail) and Mark Band 1-34% (Fail) Literature Review The student demonstrates a poor understanding of the knowledge of alternative definitions of ‘engagement’ or may fail to recognise differences. A poor knowledge of the subject matter and a poor analysis which fails to contrast similar concepts (or does so superficially) such as ‘involvement’, ‘participation’ and ‘commitment’ is demonstrated. Student demonstrates poor or no knowledge and analysis of behaviours and evidential signs for engagement such as organisational citizenship and discretionary behaviour and the differences between engagement, non-engagement and disengagement are not evident. The student undertakes a poor critical review of the research linking engagement with organisational behaviour. No attempt or a weak attempt to analyse problems with identifying cause-effect relationships is evident. Weak attempts have been made to disentangle the reality from the rhetoric, if at all. Little if at all any evidence based argument is demonstrated illustrating a weak or non-existent understanding of theory and/or organisational practice. Discussion The evaluation lacks a critical perspective, does not have a business focus, evidence based approach and does not relates theory to practice. There has been little attempt made to discuss ‘engagement’ in a meaningful way, if at all. Recommendations Inappropriate recommendations have been offered, that may be incapable of implementation, or be unethical. Recommendations (if at all made) are platitudes focused on what “they” should do or should not do, unsupported by any convincing justification or persuasive rationale that might otherwise have led “them” to believe in whatever is proposed. Recommendations appear to be separated in logic from the preceding material in the report: they are either divorced from the text or are based on some entirely new assumptions and evidence not previously mentioned. Presentation and Persuasion The presentation and structure of assessment evidence is unacceptable. There is a failure to express concepts clearly, systematically/or confidently. An inappropriate tone may have been adopted. References have not been supplied, have been used inaccurately, or have not been attributed.