Assessment Brief Program Bachelor of Business College William Blue College of Hospitality Management APM College of Business and Communication Code and Subject MGT101A Managing in a Global Environment Assessment Case Study Analysis 4 Group or Individual Individual Length 1800 words (+/- 10%) Learning Outcomes A, B, C, D, E and F Submission Date Week 11 Total Marks 100 marks Weighting 40% Assessment Brief: The assessment consists of three parts: PART 1 (Word count: 600; Marks 30) Students are required to research and analyse a contemporary Australian business leader of their choice. The focus of the analysis should be the application of the content of Week 8 (Leadership for Sustainability), however wider application is recommended. The leader should be thoroughly researched and the analysis should be fully referenced (in-text as well as in a Think: Education standard reference list). HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 1 of 7Marking Criteria Part 1 8.5 - 10 7.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 7.5 5 – 6.5 4.5 - 5 0 – 4.5 Case Selection and Introduction /5 Appropriate business leader identified and comprehensively introduced. Appropriate business leader identified and introduced at a high standard. Appropriate business leader identified and introduced at an above average standard. Appropriate business leader identified and introduced at a sufficient standard. Appropriate business leader identified and introduced at a below standard. Appropriate/ Inappropriate business leader insufficiently introduced. Analysis of the case /20 Thoughtful, insightful and comprehensive analysis of the case with exceptional interpretation and application of the theory. Comprehensive analysis of the case with a high standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Thorough analysis of the case with an above average standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Adequate analysis of the case with sufficient standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Adequate analysis lacking sufficient detail of the case with below average standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Inadequate analysis of the case with insufficient standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Presentation /5 Exceptional presentation, writing and referencing. Exceptional quality of sources researched and cited correctly. Excellent presentation, writing and referencing. Excellent quality of sources researched and cited correctly. Good presentation, writing and referencing. Good quality of sources researched and cited correctly. Sufficient standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Sufficient quality of sources researched and cited correctly. Below average standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Below average quality of sources researched and cited correctly. Inadequate standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Inadequate quality of sources researched and cited correctly. Total mark / 30 HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 2 of 7PART 2 (Word count: 600: Marks 30) Students are required to read the Case Study on the Outback Steakhouse below and answer the questions following. Use a question-and-answer format. The focus of theory application should be on weeks 9 and 10. Outback Steakhouse With their years of experience in the restaurant business, Robert Basham, Timothy Gannon and Chris Sullivan, founders of Outback Steakhouse, were acutely aware of the hygiene factors in the food-service industry. Outback is an Australian-themed restaurant founded in the US that deliberately adopts an Australian theme, sells Australian menu items and is decorated with Australian artefacts. While the average restaurant is designed to maximise the number of customers at the expense of the food preparation area, Outback puts the emphasis on providing the best possible spaces for servers and kitchen staff to do their jobs effectively, even at peak business times. Outback’s dinner-only policy and maximum five-day working week give managers and staff time for a life outside the restaurant, which cuts down on employee turnover. Each server handles only three tables at a time, ensuring first-class service to customers and higher tips for servers. To motivate managers, Outback provides ownership. After making a US$25000 investment and signing a five year contract, Outback managers receive 10 per cent of the earnings of their restaurants each month. In 2012 this provided the average manager with a total of about US$118600 per year, far above rest of the industry. In addition, managers receive about 4000 shares that vest at the end of five years. Regular staff also participate in a share ownership plan. Managers are further motivated by the level of responsibility Outback bestows on them. Restaurant managers have the authority to make their own decisions rather than merely implement decisions dictated by headquarters. Has Outback’s motivational approach worked? In December 1994, six years after its launch, there were 210 Outbacks, with revenues estimated at US$544 million. As Timothy Gannon put it, ‘We believe if you treat employees as if you were one of them and give them the right environment, they will blow you away with their performance.’ (Finegan 1994). By 2004- 2005, Outback boasted 1105 restaurants and revenue of US$3.3 billion, with 82 875 employees! (Mauder, 2004). Outback’s co-founders, who are all significant shareholders in the parent company OSI, have innovated with kerbside takeaway, Internet booking and new brands, menu items and formulas combining to keep them at the leading edge. The founders clearly believe and live the idea that they succeed through their people, known as Outbackers’. By keeping their employees motivated, and ‘having a good time’, Outback’s executives know that their customer service will be good. By 2012, Outback’s successful approach to motivating its staff has led to expansion to 21 countries with many hundreds of restaurants operating in numerous brand names, with such growth signifying a company and group of mangers who are clearly getting a lot of things, including staff motivation, right. Source: Samson, D., Daft, R.L. 2012. Fundamentals of Management, 4th Asia Pacific ed, Cengage Learning Australia, South Melbourne, Australia. HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 3 of 7Questions: 1. What theories of motivation underlie the way in which Outback’s leaders motivate their managers and staff? (Reflect on the theories studied in Week 9 and motivate your answer.) 2. Discuss how empowerment is employed in the Outback Steakhouses to meet higher motivational needs and suggest practical ways in which other staff could also be motivated through empowerment. 3. If you are given the task of communicating the recommendations made in question 2 to your employees, how would you go about it? (Go carefully through the content of Week 10 [Communication in organisations] and try to apply as much as possible of the theory to your answer.) HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 4 of 7Marking Criteria: Part 2 8.5 - 10 7.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 7.5 5 – 6.5 4.5 - 5 0 – 4.5 Analysis of the case /20 Thoughtful, insightful and comprehensive analysis of the case with exceptional interpretation and application of the theory. Comprehensive analysis of the case with a high standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Thorough analysis of the case with an above average standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Adequate analysis of the case with sufficient standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Adequate analysis lacking sufficient detail of the case with below average standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Inadequate analysis of the case with insufficient standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Level of Understanding and Independent thought used /5 Excellent understanding and exceptional level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Very good understanding and high level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Good understanding and satisfactory level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Average understanding and sufficient level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Inadequate understanding and low level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Poor understanding and low/no level of independent thought displayed. Presentation /5 Exceptional presentation, writing and referencing. Exceptional quality of additional sources researched and cited. Excellent presentation, writing and referencing. Excellent quality of additional sources researched and cited. Good presentation, writing and referencing. Good quality of additional sources researched and cited. Sufficient standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Sufficient sources researched and cited. Below average standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Below average level of sources cited. Inadequate standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Inadequate level of sources cited. Total mark / 30 HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 5 of 7PART 3 (Word count: 600; Marks 40) Each student is required to discuss and analyse a team they have been a part of or been able to observe in their own environment. This could be a work team, sporting team or student task group. The discussion should consider the following: • Describe the type of team • Describe the team characteristics • Describe the team norms • Describe the level of team cohesiveness present • Which of the team members played task-specialist roles and who socioemotional roles? Reflect on the behaviours of each role. • Describe the solving of conflict or conflict-resolution techniques used. • Suppose you are appointed as the new leader of this team and are tasked with developing an improved work roster which would improve performance. How can you use your understanding of the stages of team development to improve your team’s effectiveness? Marking Criteria Part 3 8.5 - 10 7.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 7.5 5 – 6.5 4.5 - 5 0 – 4.5 Analysis of the case /25 Thoughtful, insightful and comprehensive analysis of the case with exceptional interpretation and application of the theory. Comprehensive analysis of the case with a high standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Thorough analysis of the case with an above average standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Adequate analysis of the case with sufficient standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Adequate analysis lacking sufficient detail of the case with below average standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Inadequate analysis of the case with insufficient standard of interpretation and application of the theory. Level of Understanding and Independent thought used /10 Excellent understanding and exceptional level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Very good understanding and high level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Good understanding and satisfactory level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Average understanding and sufficient level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Inadequate understanding and low level of independent thought and creativity displayed. Poor understanding and low/no level of independent thought displayed. Presentation /5 HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 6 of 7Exceptional presentation, writing and referencing. Exceptional quality of additional sources researched and cited. Excellent presentation, writing and referencing. Excellent quality of additional sources researched and cited. Good presentation, writing and referencing. Good quality of additional sources researched and cited. Sufficient standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Sufficient sources researched and cited. Below average standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Below average level of sources cited. Inadequate standard of presentation, writing and referencing. Inadequate level of sources cited. Total mark / 40 HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 4 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 7 of 7