Contemporary Case Studies in HRM Report

profileSam1994
AssessmentBriefJanuary2018.docx

Assessment Brief

Instructions for assessment

You are required to produce an individual report (3,000 words) based on a given HRM case scenario exploring and proposing recommendations to resolve the key HRM issues highlighted in the case scenario, together with an outline implementation on plan to support your recommendations.

You will find the case scenarios at the end of this assessment brief, together with the marking rubric.

This information is also available on Moodle, together with some examples of previous assessment, so you get a better understanding of the expectations.

The word limit for this assessment is 3,000 words, excluding references

How will we support you with your assessment?

· Seminars designed to help you practise the skills you will need to be successful in the assessment

· Formative feedback on a draft of your report outline (provided by your Seminar Tutor after reading week)

· Links to the assessment throughout your seminars

· Examples of previous coursework discussed in seminars, as well as extracts of coursework on Moodle from different grade boundaries where available

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking rubric provided on Moodle. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.

Referencing

You MUST use the Harvard System.

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

· Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.

· Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.

· Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback. A provisional mark will then be made available through Moodle.

· Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.

· Stop Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the School Office and following the Examination Board you will be informed of where to find the mark ratified by the Examination Board, plus any details about resist assessments, should you be required to complete a resit.

FINAL MARK:

FEEDBACK FOR STUDENTS AGAINST THE CRITERIA:

STOP

START

CONTINUE

Intellectual/transferrable learning outcome:

STOP

START

CONTINUE

Case scenarios

Case scenario - Work-life-balance and well-being in a professional services firm

CWP Services is a professional services firm that provides change management and HR consulting services to organizations, across a range of business sectors. CWP Services currently employs 13,500 staff, across Europe; 65% of the workforce is male and 35% female.

One of the firm’s diversity management goals is to increase the percentage of female employees, especially those working in senior roles. However as with other professional service firms the nature of the work - client-focused, long hours working, often working away from home - is making it difficult for the organization to achieve this particular diversity goal.

Whilst in the past the firm has not found it difficult to attract and retain key talent, the organization has started to notice that the number of both young male and female applicants has started to decline. In addition, the number of staff leaving after 3 - 5 years with the firm has started to increase, particularly amongst those aged 35-45.

Results from the latest employee survey indicate that:

· Only 40% of staff is satisfied with their work-life balance. The survey results indicate that female employees and those working with International clients are the most dis-satisfied.

· Only 50% of staff feel that their manager is supportive when they raise personal issues relating to work-life-balance.

· Only 40% of staff feels that the range of flexible work options is sufficient to meet their changing needs.

· Staff that have opted for flexible working feel that their career has plateaued.

The senior partners of the firm have expressed concern about the latest employee survey results, as well as other key HR metrics. As the Director of HR for UK, Europe and the Middle East, you have been tasked with identifying what changes the firm could make to its flexible working and work-life-balance policies and procedures to address the concerns of staff, whilst at the same time providing a high level of service to clients.

Structuring your report

1. Introduction

In this section you will need to summarise the key issues in the case scenario. If there is data contained in the case scenario comment on that – what is the data telling you about what the underlying organizational problems might be. This should help you focus on the recommendations section.

You then need to comment on the wider contextual factors that could be affecting the issues in the case study. For example, if you are looking at age diversity what are the wider social, economic and political factors that are making age diversity a growing area of concern for policy makers. What supporting evidence can you draw on e.g. feature in the economist, WERS data, CIPD research reports.

2. Proposed solutions (two/three max)

In this section you need to recommend and justify two/three key solutions for the key issues set out in your introduction.

For each recommendation, state clearly what the recommendation is. Then use a combination of academic sources, practitioner sources, and other case examples to support your recommendation. Remember managers will pay more attention to HR’s recommendations if these are supported with good evidence. For example, if you are looking at International expansion and resourcing in a technology-focused organization then look for comparable organizational examples. Who are the other well-respected technology companies that you could include. Try and find out how they dealt with International resourcing as they expanded.

3. Implementation plan, with key milestones and evaluation criteria

For any of you who have taken managing projects then you can apply your knowledge from that module to help with this section. Otherwise look for clues in other case examples, as well as research reports. Be careful not to be too ambitious, remember the SMART approach to objective setting.

This section should be presented in a table format: key activities, responsibilities, timescale milestones and a section on what data would need to be gathered to assess how well your recommendations have been achieved. An example layout is as follows:

Recommendation

Key actions/activities linked to recommendation

Who needs to be involved (e.g. HR, Senior Managers, Employee Forum, Trade Unions)

Timescale (e.g. weeks, months, year)

Success criteria (What HRM measures would you use to monitor if a successful outcome e.g. retention, better outcomes in staff survey)

Recommendation 1

Recommendation 2

Recommendation 3

.

Contemporary Case Studies in HRM – Individual Report Marking Rubric (Spring 2017)

Mark range

100

Exemplary

85

Excellent

75

Very Good

65

Good

55

Competent

45

Weak

35

Marginal Fail

20

Fail

Introduction: summary of key issues raised in case scenario, with commentary on broader contextual factors that may be contributing to the issues in the case scenario. (20%)

Extremely clear understanding of task demonstrated. Key themes in case scenario drawn out, supported with insightful wider contextual commentary, supported with relevant academic and/or practitioners sources.

Excellent understanding of task. Key themes summarised from case. Clear attempt to link themes in case with wider contextual factors (e.g. economic, social, political)

Very clear understanding of task. Essential themes from case summarised. Some wider contextual factors discussed, with some supporting evidence.

Clear understanding of task. Most of key themes from case summarised.

Some wider contextual factors discussed, but limited supporting evidence.

Reasonable understanding of the task. Key themes from case summarized, but quite limited contextual factors discussed.

Poor understanding of the task. Rather incoherent themes from case presented.

No contextual factors covered.

Poor understanding of the task. Incoherent introduction - unnclear what the aim of your report is.

Very poor understanding of the task. Incoherent introduction.

Proposed solutions to address key issues in organizational case: two/three clear recommendations, with relevant supporting evidence to justify these (40%)

Extremely clear and relevant recommendations, supported with a wide range of academic/practitioner sources, or comparable case example. Extremely clear evidence of wider research.

Very clear and relevant recommendations, supported with a good range of academic/practitioner sources, or comparable case example. Clear evidence of wider research.

Clear and relevant recommendations, supported with a good range of academic/practitioner sources, or comparable case example. Evidence of wider research.

Relevant recommendations, supported with a good range of academic/practitioner sources, or comparable case example. Evidence of wider research, but over-reliance on other cases, than case one type.

Relevant recommendations but supporting evidence limited. Over reliance on a particular type of resource e.g. practitioner sources, or supporting case example(9) not from comparable sector.

Recommendations not well thought out – unrealistic , or do not reflect the key issues in the case. Supporting evidence limited.

Recommendations not well thought out – unrealistic , or do not reflect the key issues in the case. Supporting evidence very limited.

Recommendations clearly not well thought out – unrealistic , or do not reflect the key issues in the case. Lack of supporting evidence.

Implementation plan: (30%)

This section is extremely well thought through. Clear actions, with responsibilities. Timescales are realistic. Very clear thoughts on how outcomes will be monitored.

This section is well thought through. Clear actions, with responsibilities. Timescales are realistic. Clear thoughts on how outcomes will be monitored.

This section is well thought through. Clear actions, with reasonably clear responsibilities. Timescales are quite realistic. Clear thoughts on how outcomes will be monitored.

This section is quite well thought through. Actions reasonably clear. Timescales rather ambitious. Good thoughts on how outcomes will be monitored.

This section needed more thought. Actions less clear and/or unrealistic. timescales. Reasonable thoughts on how outcomes will be monitored.

This section needed a lot more thought. Actions unclear and/or unrealistic. timescales. Limited evidence of how outcomes will be monitored.

This section needed a lot more thought. Actions very unclear and/or unrealistic. timescales. Limited evidence of how outcomes will be monitored.

This section needed a lot more thought. Actions very vague. Limited evidence of how outcomes will be monitored.

Presentation, structure, and referencing: (10%)

Extremely fluent and fluid assignment. Professional presentation. In-text referencing consistently conforms to Harvard standards. Reference list in correct Harvard format.

A highly fluent and fluid assignment. Professional presentation..

In-text referencing largely conforms to Harvard standards. Reference list largely in correct Harvard format.

Very fluent and fluid assignment. Professional presentation. In-text referencing largely conforms to Harvard standards. Reference list largely in correct Harvard format.

Overall quite fluent and fluid assignment. Good overall presentation and style of writing. In-text referencing largely conforms to Harvard standards. Reference list largely in correct Harvard format.

Your assignment is reasonably well presented, but structure needs working on, so that your points flow better. Style of writing rather journalistic. Referencing needs attention to ensure consistent use of Harvard format.

Poor overall structure. Unprofessional presentation – evidence of lack of attention to detail in places. In-text referencing and reference list does not conform to Harvard format.

Very poor structure. Unprofessional presentation - lacking attention to detail e.g. spelling and grammatical errors. Referencing and bibliography do not conform to Harvard format

Extremely poor structure – incoherent. Unprofessional – presentation, that lacks attention to detail e.g. contains spelling mistake, grammatical errors. In-text referencing and bibliography do not conform to Harvard format