Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Information Subject Code: MBA401 Subject Name: People, Culture and Contemporary Leadership Assessment Title: Assessment 1 – Report Weighting: 40% Total Marks: Word-count: 40 2,000 words Due Date: Monday of Week 7 at 11.55pm via turnitin . Assessment Description Pick an organisation of your choice. This may be one that you are currently working in, or one that you have been a part of in the past. Alternatively, it could be an organisation that you have a particular interest in. The organisation may be new or old, large or small, profit or not-for-profit. It may be domiciled in Australia, but selecting an overseas or global organisation is acceptable. However, whichever you choose, it is important that you are able to get information on employee engagement and people metrics. You are required to research the organisation so that you have a sound understanding of the people and human resource practices that are in place. This may be via internet sources or preferably by interviewing staff within the organisation that you have chosen. You are required to complete the following task: Write a report that assesses an organisation’s people practices and employee engagement levels and recommend a number of initiatives that aim to improve employee engagement. Your report should be based on appropriate theory and research. The purpose of the assessment is to apply what you have learned about people, human resources and organisations to your selected organisation and make some clear recommendations of HR initiatives that you believe will increase employee engagement within the organisation. Your report should include:  A contents page (an executive summary is not required).  A clear introduction defining scope.  An overview of the organisation chosen.  The identification and discussion of the organisation’s business strategy.  An evaluation of the people and HR practices that exist within the organisation.  An overview and analysis of the current state of employee engagement that exists in the organisation, which is based on a sound theoretical description of what employee engagement actually is. Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.  A structured plan of initiatives that you believe will increase employee engagement over time.  For each initiative, you should specifically outline: o What the initiative is and why you have chosen it. o What you propose should be done, substantiated by sound rationale and theory. o What you expect the impact to be and why, substantiated by sound rationale and theory.  A clear conclusion that summarises the key recommendations in the report.  A reference list. Further guidance:  You should include a minimum of 15 references. At least 8 of these should be academic journals. The rest can be textbooks and appropriate websites.  You should adopt the Harvard referencing convention throughout your report as well as in the reference list at the end.  It is recommended that you use the structure outlined above and adopt sub-headings based on each bullet point.  The attached marking rubrics guide the marker when awarding marks for your report. You should review your paper in line with this to ensure there is nothing you have missed.  It is important to check your similarity in turnitin. All sentences highlighted must be either paraphrased in your own words or put in quotes and referenced accordingly. You should be aiming for as low a similarity score as you can. Similarity highlighted in a contents page, reference list or appendices is nothing to be concerned about.  Some examples of how consulting firms address the engagement issues are given below for your information. You should not use these in your own report. o http://www.haygroup.com/au/downloads/details.aspx?id=27756 o http://engageforsuccess.org/case-studies o www.aon.com/attachments/harrahs.pdf o https://www.genosinternational.com/employee-engagement/case-studies/re- focusing-culture-direction-operations COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Criteria F (Fail) 0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction) 75% - 84% HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% Mark Assessment Content (Subject Specific) OUT OF 80 MARKS Introduction and Conclusion Provides poor context and does not link to the assessment in a clear and coherent way. May be missing entirely. Provides satisfactory context but links to the assessment in only a partially clear and coherent way. Provides reasonable context and links to the assessment in a fairly clear and coherent way. Provides solid context and links to the assessment in a clear and coherent way. Provides excellent context and links to the assessment in an extremely clear and coherent way. /10 Organisation Overview Overview is poorly written, not thorough and identifies an unsatisfactory amount of the pertinent issues. Overview is satisfactorily written, not very thorough and only identifies a few of the pertinent issues. Overview is well written, reasonably thorough and identifies some of the pertinent issues. Overview is very well written, very thorough and identifies most of the pertinent issues. Overview is excellently written, extremely thorough and identifies all the pertinent issues. /10 Organisation’s Business Strategy Strategy is discussed using no or minimal key theories to frame an answer that is incoherent and does not link to the explanation of current practices. Strategy is discussed using a small number of key theories to frame an answer in a relatively coherent way that partially links to the explanation of current practices. Strategy is discussed using some key theories to frame an answer in a reasonably clear way that links reasonably well to the explanation of current practices. Strategy is discussed using most key theories to frame an answer in a coherent way that links clearly to the explanation of current practices. Strategy is discussed using all key theories to frame an answer in an extremely coherent way that links seamlessly to the explanation of current practices. /10 Existing Organisational Practices Poor evaluation of organisational practices that superficially describes and poorly identifies what is working, and what is not. Answer is not substantiated by academic theory. Satisfactory evaluation of organisational practices that describes and identifies what is working, and what is not. Answer has limited substantiation using academic theory. Good evaluation of organisational practices that partially analyses and partially identifies what is working, and what is not. Answer is partially substantiated by academic theory. Very good evaluation of organisational practices that fully analyses and clearly identifies what is working, and what is not. Answer is predominantly substantiated by academic theory. Excellent evaluation of organisational practices that logically analyses and thoroughly identifies what is working, and what is not. Answer is fully substantiated by academic theory. /10 Examination of Employee Engagement Engagement is poorly evaluated, poorly analysed, and poorly applied with respect to the organisation in question. It has little or no theory and research. Answer poorly demonstrates what engagement is and why the level is what it is. Engagement is reasonably well evaluated, reasonably well analysed, and reasonably well applied with respect to the organisation in question. It is inconsistently substantiated by theory and research. Answer somewhat demonstrates what engagement is and why the level is what it is. Engagement is well evaluated, well analysed, and well applied with respect to the organisation in question. It is partially substantiated by theory and research. Answer reasonably clearly demonstrates what engagement is and why the level is what it is. Engagement is very well evaluated, very well analysed, and very well applied with respect to the organisation in question. It is mainly substantiated by theory and research. Answer clearly demonstrates what engagement is and why the level is what it is. Engagement is excellently evaluated, skilfully analysed, and thoughtfully applied with respect to the organisation in question. It is fully substantiated by theory and research. Answer very clearly demonstrates what engagement is and why the level is what it is. /15 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Structured Plan with Initiatives Plan is poorly structured and unclear. It does not identify or describe each initiative, nor does it justify the rationale in accordance with the organisational context. It uses no or virtually no theory and research to outline the expected organisational impact. Plan is satisfactorily structured and clear. It partially identifies and describes each initiative, with limited justification of the rationale in accordance with the organisational context. It uses limited theory and research to outline the expected organisational impact. Plan is well structured and clear. It identifies and describes each initiative, with some justification of the rationale in accordance with the organisational context. It uses some theory and research to outline the expected organisational impact. Plan is very well structured and clear. It accurately identifies and describes each initiative, and mainly justifies the rationale in accordance with the organisational context. It uses a reasonable amount of theory and research to outline the expected organisational impact. Plan is exceptionally well structured and clear. It skilfully identifies and describes each initiative, and fully justifies the rationale in accordance with the organisational context. It uses substantial theory and research to outline the expected organisational impact. /25 Structure Format and Presentation (Consistent across all courses) OUT OF 20 MARKS Answer clearly and logically presented. Answer presented is not clear and logical. Answer presented is somewhat clear and logical. Answer presented is very clear and logical. Answer presented is substantially clear and logical. Answer presented is exceptionally clear and logical. /3 Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed. Answer unsatisfactorily incorporates, integrates and applies theory and research. Answer satisfactorily incorporates but only minimally integrates and applies theory and research. Answer solidly incorporates, integrates and applies theory and research. Answer predominantly incorporates, integrates and applies theory and research. Answer skilfully incorporates, integrates and applies theory and research. /4 Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing quality is an inadequate standard with substantial errors. Writing quality is a reasonable standard but with quite a few errors. Writing quality is a good standard with some errors. Writing quality is a high standard with minimal errors. Writing quality is of an impeccable standard with errors that are only negligible. /3 Format of answer consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines. Format of answer poorly follows the question requirement and KBS guidelines. Format of answer partially follows the question requirement and KBS guidelines. Format of answer solidly follows the question requirement and KBS guidelines. Format of answer substantially follows the question requirement and KBS guidelines. Format of answer almost faultlessly follows the question requirement and KBS guidelines. /3 In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Frequent errors and/or inconsistent application of Harvard referencing conventions. Some errors and/or inconsistent application of Harvard referencing conventions. Occasional errors and/or inconsistent application of Harvard referencing conventions. Minimal errors and/or inconsistent application of Harvard referencing conventions. Negligible errors and/or inconsistent application of Harvard referencing conventions. /5 Word-count is within +/- 10% of requirement. Word-count is not within +/- 10% of requirement. n/a n/a n/a Word-count is within +/- 10% of requirement. /2 Comments: /80 /20 /100