Relationship Selling – Changing the Sales Function for the Better

GRADE

CRITERIA FOR KNOWLEDGE, ANALYSIS, SYNTHESIS AND EVALUATION.

First Class Honours: 70%-100%

· A deep and systematic engagement with the assignment brief, consistently demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of Sales Management reflecting:

· Thorough engagement with Sales textbooks and research papers, lecture slides and class discussions.

· A critical and comprehensive appreciation of the essay title demonstrating an understanding of what is being assessed here.

· An element of criticality by applying theory judiciously and insightfully rather than merely listing or repeating without application.

· Clear, fluent, stimulating and original expression.

· Excellent writing style (spelling, grammar) with minimal or no presentation errors

· Introduction is not an elaborate TOC and the Conclusion brings some overall learnings rather than repeating what work was carried out.

Second Class Honours: 60%-69%

· A substantial engagement with the assignment brief, with an impressive demonstration of an understanding of Sales Management reflecting:

· Thorough engagement with the Sales textbooks and research papers, lecture slides and class discussions.

· Attempt made at critical and comprehensive understanding of the essay title and what is being assessed here.

· An element of criticality by trying to apply theory judiciously and insightfully rather than merely listing or repeating without application.

· Clear and fluent expression.

· Quality presentation with few spelling/grammatical errors.

· Attempt made at writing an Introduction that is not an elaborate TOC and Conclusion should bring some overall learnings rather than repeating what work was carried out.

· Evidence of reading at least the requisite number of references.

Third Class Honours: 50-59%

· A reasonably competent answer marked by:

· Evidence of familiarity with the relevant Sales Management literature though somewhat ‘light touch’.

· Use of Internet sources.

· A chronological presentation or question by question presentation of the findings rather than an attempt made at providing insights.

· Lacks criticality, lists included.

· Grammatical and spelling errors evident.

· Introduction and conclusion are descriptive and merely outline what is to come/what has been discussed.

· Poor quality/below requisite number of references used.

· Not Harvard style.

· Some use of ‘I feel’, I believe’,‘In my opinion’, etc.

Passing Grade: 40%-49%

· A low level of intellectual engagement with the assessment task showing:

· Minimal familiarity with the relevant literature.

· Limited use of academic evidence, over-reliance on Internet sources.

· Limited critical awareness displayed.

· Somewhat anecdotal with use of expressions such as ‘I think’, ‘I believe’, ‘I feel’ etc.

· Lists included.

· Acceptable presentation with some spelling or grammatical errors.

· Below word count leading to critical concepts and sections not being explored in sufficient depth.

· Not Harvard style.

· Requisite number of references not provided.

Fail: Less than 40%

· Assignment brief not adhered to with tasks missing.

· Poor execution of the brief illustrating a lack of engagement with class discussion, texts and lecture slides

· No academic references and use of Internet sources and blogs for theoretical constructs or overly personal and anecdotal. Much use of ‘I think’, ‘I believe’, ‘I feel’ etc.

· Poorly written making the work difficult to follow such as overly long sentences or evidence of Google translate or other software used to substitute/change words in another text.

· Unacceptable standards of presentation such as poor grammar or spelling.

· Unacceptably below word count so topic has not been tackled in sufficient depth.

· Lists included.

· No biblio/poor presented/poor quality bibliography.