Strategic Leadership and Human Resource Practices in Organisation

Performance Criteria

(70-100%)

Work of an outstanding, excellent & v. good standard (*)

(60-69%)

Work of a good standard.

(50-59%)

Work of a pass standard.

D (40-49%)

Fail

E (0-39%)

Fail

Executive Summary (5%)

A critical overview with the help of Executive Summary. Bring out relevant authors, rival theories, and major debates to a very good, possibly excellent (even outstanding) standard.

A synthesized overview of the Executive Summary, where good use of existing academic work and evaluation of main work is given out coherently. Some review of relevant authors, rival theories, and major debates.

A reasonable overview of the Executive Summary, where satisfactory summary is given of the whole produced work. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors & major debates are presented. Evidence of suitable basic reading.

Limited overview of Executive Summary. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited presentation of the whole summary.

Confused overview of Executive Summary. Fundamental misconceptions of how to write an Executive Summary. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of summary requirements.

Introduction (15%)

Introduction should explicitly bring out relevant details necessary to understand the context of organization. The business scenario is elaborated using facts and figure or related information from academic and non-academic sources where necessary.

Exemplary compilation with detailed background on concepts of HRM, its functions, linkage to SHRM and organizational performance. Mature links made between relevant ideas, theories, and practice. Extensive range of relevant sources; those identified beyond classroom sessions; are used. An argumentative perspective is presented demonstrating originality and creativity in the interpretation of the scope of staffing, development, and compensation. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

Introduction should bring out good relevant details necessary to understand the context of the organization. The business scenario clearly described using adequate terminology. Some external sources (academic or non-academic) referenced and included to support discussion.

Competent compilation with sufficient background on concepts of HRM, its functions, linkage to SHRM and organizational performance. Sound links made between relevant ideas, theories, and practice. A sufficient range of relevant sources; from among those identified in classroom sessions; are used. An evocative perspective is presented in the interpretation of scope of staffing, development, and compensation. Negligible errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

Introduction should bring out satisfactorily the practices in the organization. The business scenario described but has gaps. External sources (academic or non-academic) not included or poorly used.

Basic compilation with sufficient background on concepts of HRM, its functions, linkage to SHRM and organizational performance. Average links made between relevant ideas, theories, and practice. A very limited range of relevant sources; from among those identified in classroom sessions; are used. A descriptive perspective is presented in the interpretation of scope of staffing, development, and compensation. Evident errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

Introduction is not satisfactorily bringing out business context of the organization. The business scenario has not been adequately described. External sources (academic or non-academic) not evidenced or minimal. Poor/insufficient use of facts and figures observed.

Weak compilation with sufficient background on concepts of HRM, its functions, linkage to SHRM and organizational performance. Superficial links made between relevant ideas, theories, and practice. An insufficient range of relevant sources; none from among those identified in classroom sessions; are used. A vague perspective is presented in the interpretation of scope of staffing, development, and compensation. Repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

Introduction is very sketchy and does not satisfactorily bring out the vision, mission, employee size, revenues and other information required to understand the organization in the context of strategic management practices in the organization at all. Adequate research not conducted.

Poor compilation with sufficient background on concepts of HRM, its functions, linkage to SHRM and organizational performance. Sketchy links made between relevant ideas, theories, and practice. No relevant sources: from among those identified in classroom sessions; are used. No perspective is presented in the interpretation of scope of staffing, development, and compensation. Too many errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

Effect of SHRM & HRM on Org Performance (20%)

An exceptional analysis of the literature is developed. Summarizes and shows insightful synthesis of the literature information including identification and analysis of gaps. Strong linkage is established among all the organizational performance outcomes like growth, profitability, ROI, competitive advantage, legal compliance, strategic objectives attainment, and key stakeholder satisfaction. Dr. Dave Ulrich’s Strategic HR Model is clearly synthesized. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

A good analysis of the literature is developed. Summarizes and shows sound synthesis of the literature information, including identification and analysis of gaps. Good linkage is established among all the organizational performance outcomes like growth, profitability, ROI, competitive advantage, legal compliance, strategic objectives attainment, and key stakeholder satisfaction. Dr. Dave Ulrich’s Strategic HR Model is well resonated. Negligible errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

A basic analysis of the literature is developed. Descriptive presentation of the literature information. Limited identification but no analysis of gaps. Average linkage is established among few of the organizational performance outcomes like growth, profitability, ROI, competitive advantage, legal compliance, strategic objectives attainment, and key stakeholder satisfaction. Dr. Dave Ulrich’s Strategic HR Model is loosely referred to. Evident errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

A weak analysis of the literature is developed. Mere compilation of information. Includes no identification and analysis of gaps. No linkage is established among all the organizational performance outcomes like growth, profitability, ROI, competitive advantage, legal compliance, strategic objectives attainment, and key stakeholder satisfaction. Repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

A poor analysis of the literature is developed. No synthesis of the literature information. Identification and analysis of gaps is absent. No linkage is established among all the organizational performance outcomes like growth, profitability, ROI, competitive advantage, legal compliance, strategic objectives attainment, and key stakeholder satisfaction. Too many errors in referencing or grammar or syntax.

Leadership Practices (20%)

The work thoroughly examines the scenario at the chosen organization. The use of the leadership models clearly brings out the alignment of the strategic HR activities to organizational goals and objectives. Highly practical justifications are provided. Illustrations and Tables are properly captioned.

The work examines the scenario at the chosen organization. The outcomes are good. The use of the leadership models clearly brings out the alignment of the strategic HR activities to organizational goals and objectives. Some sound justifications are provided. Illustrations and Tables are captioned.

A reasonably well examination of the scenario at the chosen organization. The outcomes are obvious and average. The use of the leadership models is evident, but the outcomes are descriptive about the alignment of the strategic HR activities to organizational goals and objectives. Considerable justifications are provided. Illustrations and Tables are not necessarily captioned.

The examination of the scenario at the chosen organization is not well done. The outcomes are sketchy. The use of the leadership models is evident, but the outcomes somewhat fail to present the alignment of the strategic HR activities to organizational goals and objectives. Weak justifications are provided. Illustrations and Tables are not captioned.

The examination of the scenario at the chosen organization is not well done. The outcomes are poor. The leadership models are not used and hence the outcomes fail to present the alignment of the strategic HR activities to organizational goals and objectives. Failure to provide justifications.

Change Implementation Plan (30%)

An ability to successfully synthesize theoretical issues into practice and evaluate the possible implications and lessons of SHRM and Change Mgmt. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned which have relevance to the scenario.

The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesize theoretical perspectives and practical application within chosen context SHRM and Change Mgmt. Some meaningful well-reasoned conclusions and attention given to lessons learned which have relevance to the scenario.

The work demonstrates a competence to explore issues and to synthesize theoretical perspectives and practical application within chosen case context of SHRM and Change Mgmt. Some helpful conclusions and acknowledgement of lessons learned.

There may be little evidence of an ability to apply theoretical principles to the case scenario or a wider context of SHRM and Change Mgmt. Conclusions unrelated to the scenario. Lessons learned either superficial or lacking.

No application of theoretical principles to the case scenario or a wider context of SHRM and Change Mgmt. Conclusions unrelated and confused or illogical and unsubstantiated. Lessons learned either superficial or lacking. Possibly no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of actual questions asked.

Recommendations and Conclusions (10%)

Well-organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise from results/discussion; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of SHRM issues. Recommendations driven by good deductions from findings.

Well-organised, logical, supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of SHRM issues. Recommendations driven by decent deductions from findings.

Reasonably well-organised, logical, generally supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; practical and feasible, with unclear or weak consideration of SHRM issues. Recommendations not always driven by good deductions.

Poor organisation; gaps in reasoning; some obvious conclusions omitted for the list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common sense’. No real implications and recommendations weak and incoherent.

Assertions little related to evidence, frequently illogical or arbitrary; conclusions if presented are disorganized; alternatives not considered; no real understanding of the need to draw conclusions, implications, and recommendations from results.