Assessment 3: Case Study Due date:Week 12Group/individual:IndividualWord count / Time provided:2500 wordsWeighting:40%Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO1,ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 Assessment 3 DetailThe pdf file of the case study is in Canvas Week 5. This case will enable the students to learnabout:• Leadership styles, which are effective in adverse situations.• How to manage and engage multiple stakeholders who have … Continue reading “Assessment 3: Case Study | My Assignment Tutor”
Assessment 3: Case Study Due date:Week 12Group/individual:IndividualWord count / Time provided:2500 wordsWeighting:40%Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO1,ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 Assessment 3 DetailThe pdf file of the case study is in Canvas Week 5. This case will enable the students to learnabout:• Leadership styles, which are effective in adverse situations.• How to manage and engage multiple stakeholders who have conflicting interests.• Problem-solving and ethical decision-making models; and• The effectiveness of strategic decisions.Questions for the case study:Question 1. What were the challenges faced by Suryakant Mishra? How did he exercise aproblem-solving approach?Question 2. Why did he focus on a stakeholder engagement approach? Was the stakeholdermanagement approach a game-changing strategy for UAIL or just a cost-escalation method?Question 3. What type of leadership styles, do you think, were demonstrated by Suryakant Mishra?How would you like to define his negotiation style?Question 4. What was the role of leadership communication in the case study?Question 5. Did he exercise ethical decision-making processes?Question 6. Were his decisions effective? How well did he achieve the stakeholder engagementgoal?Question 7. What approaches should his successor adopt?Students need to support their answers with further references to comprehensively address thequestions in a critical manner. In addition, summary of recently published articles relevant to projecthuman resource, communications and stakeholder management need to be added to the discussionwhere appropriate and relevant.Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and RubricThe assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40 of the total unit mark. Themarking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric Marking CriteriaNot Satisfactory(0-49% of the criterionmark)Satisfactory(50-64% of the criterionmark)Good(65-74% of the criterionmark)Very Good(75-84% of the criterionmark)Excellent(85-100% of the criterion mark)Identification andunderstanding of the casewithjustifications/rationale(15% marks).The report does notdemonstrate a clearunderstanding of the topicor provide a rationale forwhy it was selected.The report demonstratesan understanding of thetopic, and provides arationale for why it wasselected, however wasunclear in places.The report demonstrates agood understanding of thetopic, and provides arationale for why it wasselected, however wassomewhat unclear inplaces.The report demonstrates athorough knowledge of thetopic and provides arationale for why it wasselected.The report demonstrates asophisticated understanding ofthe topic and provides a clearrationale for why it was selected.Identify and analyse ofresource management,stakeholder managementand communicationmanagement issues,problems and failures asthey apply to the casestudy and recommendappropriate course ofaction with emphasis onresource, communicationand stakeholdermanagement and lessonlearnt (25% marks).Poor identification andanalyses on resource,communication andstakeholder managementissues, problems andfailures as applied to thecase study and no/minimalrecommendations ofappropriate course ofaction with emphasis onstakeholder,communication and humanresource management andlesson learnt.Satisfactory identificationand analyses on resource,communication andstakeholder managementissues, problems andfailures as applied to thecase study andrecommendations ofappropriate course ofaction with emphasis onstakeholder,communication and humanresource management andlesson learnt.Good identification andanalyses on resource,communication andstakeholder managementissues, problems andfailures as applied to thecase study and goodrecommendations ofappropriate course ofaction with emphasis onstakeholder,communication and humanresource management andlesson learnt.Very good identificationand analyses on resource,communication andstakeholder managementissues, problems andfailures as applied to thecase study andrecommendationsappropriate course ofaction with emphasis onstakeholder,communication and humanresource management andlesson learnt.Excellent identification andanalyses on resource,communication and stakeholdermanagement issues, problemsand failures as applied to the casestudy and recommendationsappropriate course of action withemphasis on stakeholder,communication and humanresource management and lessonlearnt.Evaluation of the literature(15% marks).The evaluation of theliterature did not provideclear backgroundinformation about thetopic or cite relevantsources that will beanalysed in the proposedessay.The evaluation of theliterature providesbackground informationabout the topic, but islimited, and a widerreading, citing morerelevant sources that willbe analysed in theproposed essay wasrequired.The evaluation of theliterature providesbackground informationabout the topic, but aslightly wider reading,citing more relevantsources that will beanalysed in the proposedessay was required.The evaluation of theliterature providesbackground informationabout the topic, citingrelevant sources that willbe analysed in theproposed essay.The evaluation of the literatureprovides clear backgroundinformation about the topic,citing highly relevant sources thatwill be analysed in the proposedessay. Explanation about thenotable resource,stakeholder orcommunicationmanagement practices atthe case organisation (15%marks).Poor identification andexplanation of the notableresource, stakeholder, orcommunicationmanagement practices atthe case organisation. .Satisfactory identificationand explanation of thenotable resource,stakeholder, orcommunicationmanagement practices atthe case organisation.Good identification andexplanation of the notableresource, stakeholder andcommunicationmanagement practices atthe case organisation.Very good identificationand explanation of thenotable resource,stakeholder andcommunicationmanagement practices atthe case organisation.Excellent identification andexplanation of the notableresource, stakeholder andcommunication managementpractices at the case organisation.Quality of critical analysis(15% marks)Critical analysis issophisticated and nuancedand is well supported by animpressive range of qualityevidence, with convincingand justified arguments,clearly articulated points,and balanced opinions andfuture predictions to formconclusions.Critical analysis is thoroughand is supported by a goodrange of quality evidence,with convincing arguments,clearly articulated points,and balanced opinions andfuture predictions to formconclusions.Critical analysis is good,and is supported by a rangeevidence, with some cleararguments, articulatedpoints, and opinions andfuture predictions to formconclusions, however, wasunclear in places, and aslightly wider range ofevidence was required.Critical analysis isadequate, and is supportedby some evidence,however the arguments,points, opinions and futurepredictions were unclear,and a wider range ofevidence was required.The critical analysis, arguments,points, opinions and futurepredictions were poor or absent,and not supported by relevantevidence.Writing, structure andpresentation (10%)There are many structural,wording, spelling andgrammatical issues.The ideas are written in areasonably clear manner,however there are somestructural, wording,spelling and grammaticalissues.The ideas are written andstructured in a clearmanner, with only minorwording, spelling andgrammatical issues.The ideas are written andstructured in a very clearmanner, with no wording,spelling or grammaticalissues.The ideas are written andstructured with excellent clarityand cohesion, with no wording,spelling or grammatical issues.Referencing in HarvardStyle (5%)There are many errors withthe referencing in Harvardstyle with in-text citationsand the reference list.Referencing is used,although there are someerrors with in-text citationsand the reference list inHarvard style.Referencing is usedappropriately, and onlyminor errors with in-textcitations and the referencelist in Harvard style.Referencing is usedappropriately, and noerrors with in-text citationsand the reference list inHarvard style.Referencing is excellently used,with correct in-text citations andthe reference list in Harvard style.
