465001 Management and Organisation Essay II

465001 Management and Organisation Essay II
SEMESTER TWO 2015
Critical Essay II (20%)
Word Limit: 2000
Part A:
Apply a leadership theory to the case study, The factory.  Describe and assess how this leadership theory can be applied to the case and critically evaluate the chosen theory’s utility (usefulness) in understanding what is happening in the case.
Part B:
Utilising the above leadership theory as your framework, examine what academic evidence based recommendations you can make to the various actors in this case.  In your essay, justify why your recommendations should work and provide academic based evidence to clarify and justify your thinking.
Please see the marking rubric for this research essay (end of page).
Please note:
•    this is an academic research essay not an opinion piece
•    your writing should demonstrate critical thinking
•    there must be evidence of research in this essay
•    the marking rubric demonstrates 80% of your grade will be assessing your ability to research academic research sources (such as text books and journal articles), understand concepts and theories, reference them, and apply theory to back up your arguments
•     a lack of research evidence makes it impossible to pass the essay
Instructions
1.    Consult chapter 15: Leading in organisations (prescribed textbook)
2.    Read the case study for this assignment and map out important roles and events in this case
3.    Select an appropriate leadership theory to apply to the case and describe why you think it would be an appropriate theory to use to understand what is happening in the case (with supporting evidence from your research and readings)
4.    In your essay, also recommend actions and activities to the organisation or its managers in terms of leadership.
5.    Please ensure you consult a minimum of 5 references (this does not guarantee a pass, although 10-15 is standard for most essays)
465001
SEMESTER TWO 2015
Marking rubric research essay II
Student Name:    Student ID:

Effective thinkers and problem solvers    Indicators of
ACHIEVED WITH DISTINCTION    Indicators of
ACHIEVED WITH MERIT    Indicators of
ACHIEVED    Indicators of
NOT ACHIEVED
Description and application of suitable theory to case – Understanding, analysis, synthesis, and application of knowledge and materials collected (40%)    Consistent perceptive and critical engagement with issues and themes based on comprehensive understanding of relevant concepts and theories; the analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge/data is consistently clear and effective. Theory is exceptionally well applied.    Frequent perceptive and critical engagement with issues and themes; the analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge/data is generally clear and effective but occasional shortcomings in understanding of relevant concepts and theories are evident.    Overall, some perceptive and critical engagement with issues and themes, the analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge/data is mostly clear and effective but the essay in parts reveals rather superficial understanding of relevant concepts and theories.    No or occasional critical engagement with issues, and themes. Essay characterized by serious inaccuracies and misunderstandings
Provides comprehensive and thoughtful recommendations to the case including academic evidence based practices- Understanding, analysis, synthesis, and application of knowledge and materials collected (40%)    Question/issue/ problem examined from all important perspectives. Overall logic is clear. Premises or evidence strongly support conclusions. Counter-evidence or rival positions addressed. Arguments fit together and build a compelling case.    Question/issue/ problem examined from most of the important perspectives. Expresses own position, and argumentative structure is clear and logical, but some arguments underdeveloped or some considerations overlooked.      Question/issue/ problem examined from some of the important perspectives. Not all relevant arguments and counter arguments are fully examined. Offers own position but reasoning is sometimes impaired by weak, emotive, or inconsistent reasoning.    Question/issue/ problem examined from a single perspective, or minimal examination of relevant arguments and counterarguments. Reasoning is confused, or illogical, or flawed, or disorganized, or difficult to identify or understand.
Effective communicators
Structure/organisation (10%)    Introduction clearly states writer’s position, and conclusion clearly summarizes main arguments.  Paragraphing is appropriate at all times. Each paragraph contains a central idea which is developed throughout the paragraph with supporting details.    Introduction states writer’s position, and conclusion summarizes main arguments. Paragraphing is appropriate, but some paragraphs lack supporting detail or contain unrelated details.
Introduction and conclusion are included and generally capture the essence of the topic and discussion. Evidence of ability to paragraph, but some paragraphs lack a central idea or supporting detail
Introduction and conclusion are unclear, lack detail or missing altogether. Very little evidence of an ability to organize the essay into paragraphs with one central idea and supporting details.

Mechanics (10%)    Language contains very few, if any, errors in grammar and vocabulary. If slips are present, the meaning is still clear.  Conventions of academic writing (e.g. APA 6th edition citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed meticulously.     Language is generally accurate but contains some systematic errors in complex grammar and vocabulary.    Conventions of academic writing (e.g. APA 6th edition citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed apart from the occasional oversight.    Language is mostly accurate; and errors, when they occur, are more often in complex grammar and vocabulary. Errors are distracting but the overall meaning is still intelligible. Conventions of academic writing (e.g. APA 6th edition citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed but with inconsistencies and/or errors.    Errors in language and vocabulary are so frequent and distracting that the essay is largely incomprehensible.  Does not adhere to the conventions of academic writing (e.g. no or little use of APA 6th edition citation, references, footnotes, etc.).
Note: Not all criteria carry equal weight, full grade range may be used i.e. A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C- and D
Comments:

Frequently Asked Questions
Assessment 3: Essay II

1)      The assessment for second critical essay is 2000 words (Study guide mentions 2000 but the assessment link on blackboard mentions 1500- this was a mistake on our part so we will allow the 2000 words)
2)      Academic evidence means text books and journal articles only (although other sources are allowed as long as there is a mix of journal articles and textbooks) – as with the first assignment we are looking at minimum 5 references (this is no guarantee of passing- more a mark of quality) but most essays should aim for more (10-15- again depends on quality of use).
3)      The due date is week 10 (online submission). A previous blackboard announcement mentions week 8 (this is incorrect, it is week 10).
4)      A FAQ page will be set up once we have more questions
5)      Clarification from Smita’s lectures: “With regards to theory, here is where we need clarification. A lecture slide shows this image that we all must be familiar with. I used it. It’s using the word theory. However, I think these are schools of thought/ perspectives and within each school of thought/perspective you have different theories. For example, behavioural school of thought mentions ‘research programs’ also referred to as ‘metacategories’ for understanding leadership behaviour (pg. 563) : OHIO, MICHIGAN, LEADERSHIP GRID. These as I understand are various theories. The second school of thought is Contingency and the three theories are 1) Fieldlers 2) Hersey and Blanchards 3) leader-member exchange approach. That’s all I was able to cover and I didn’t go beyond it to cover transformational theory.  So students have to pick one theory – could be for example Feilders only for their assessment”