Seminar 2: Assessment

People in Global Organisations

Jenna Pandeli

FEB 2022
Plan for Today

Go through the overall assessment

Elaborate on Part 1
Elaborate on Part 2
Go through the Marking Criteria for
Part 2
Ideas on structure for Part 2 (to be
viewed in your own time)
PAGO ASSESSMENT

Module Code: UMODPX-15-M

Module Title: People and Global Organisations

Submission Deadline: Tuesday 10th May 2022 2pm

Assessment Component: A

Assessment Weighting: 100%

People and Global Organisations has one submission assessment which

forms Component A. There are 2 parts to this submission. To pass the
module students need a mark of 50% or higher.
PAGO ASSESSMENT

Part 1: A 200-word summary of each topic from PAGO to be completed

each week (from week 2) and submitted with Part 2 at the end of the
module.
Length: 2500 words (max)
 
Part 2: An analysis of a case study in the form of an
individual written assignment based on three topics from this
module.
Length: 2000 words (max).

Electronic submission via Blackboard by Tuesday 10th May

2022. You must submit in Word format and both Part 1 and Part
2 should be included as 1 document. Part 1 should be included as
PAGO ASSESSMENT: PART 1
Part 1 should be completed each week. After each lecture and seminar,
starting from week 2, you will write approximately 200 words on the topic
that was covered that week (with a maximum total word count for Part 1
being 2500 words), addressing either of the following:

1. A summary of the topic and its key debates and discussions

2. A summary of how you plan to integrate this topic into your final essay
3. A reflexive summary of a journal article on this topic

Whilst this must be completed each week, you will submit this with Part 2 on 10th
May. Part 1 should be included as an appendix to your essay (Part 2). Part 1 will not
be formally marked instead it forms part of your formative assessment. If you keep
on top of Part 1 throughout the semester, you can bring this to your seminar to
discuss with your tutor and peers and obtain feedback. This will then help you to
develop your understanding of the topics and plan for your essay. Therefore, Part 1
helps you to prepare for Part 2.
PAGO ASSESSMENT: PART 1

WEEK W/C Topic

30 7th Feb People and Cultures
31 14th Feb Leading and being led across
cultures
32 21st Feb International Strategic HRM
33 28th Feb Selection and Deployment
34 7th March Learning and Training
35 14th March Power and Politics
36 21st March Diversity
37 28th March Managing Change
38 4th April Working ethically
• Should I include references for Part 1?
You do not have to include reference, but it is likely that you will include 1 or 2 references most weeks
in your Part 1 activity as to summarise the topics, it is likely you will draw on some of the references
from the lecture or from your reading. Particularly if you are summarising the reading of a journal
articles.

• Is there a marking criteria for Part 1?

No there is not marking criteria for Part 1

• What’s the point in Part 1? Why do I need to submit this?

Part 1 is an incredibly useful and vital part of the assessment for several reasons:
-It encourages you to engage in ALL topics of the module, thus providing you with broad knowledge of
the subject & improving your understanding, not just the ones you will include in your essay.
-It is essentially your ‘workings out’ for Part 2, so when we mark Part 2 we can get a sense of your
ideas and understanding from Part 1
-Completing Part 1 is an opportunity to receive formative feedback – the more you work on the
module throughout the semester, the more chance of discussing your ideas for the final assessment
with your tutor and getting additional feedback.

• How does the word count work for Part 1?

200-words per topic is a rough guide. You can include a maximum of 2500 words overall for Part 1. You
may use more words for some sections (e.g. if you plan to include topics in your Part 2) and a little less
in others. I would suggest not using less than 150 for any topic.
 In groups, please spend 5 minutes
discussing how you might begin Part 1
for this weeks topic of culture.

Please also consider any questions you

might have about Part 1 so far
PAGO ASSESSMENT: PART 2
This is a 2000-word critical analysis of a case study using your knowledge and
understanding of the topics and theories that we have covered throughout this
module. You must choose 3 topics from the module to discuss and analyse the case.
You must include at least 1 topic from Organisation Studies and 1 topic from HRM.

 International Strategic Human

 Culture Resource Management

 Leadership  Resourcing

 Change  Learning

 Power and Politics   Diversity

 Working Ethically

AND A THIRD TOPIC

ONE TOPIC ONE TOPIC FROM EITHER COLUMN
FROM HERE FROM HERE
PAGO ASSESSMENT: PART 2

The case: ‘The Lidl International Career Opportunity:

From Dream to Nightmare in 8 weeks’ By Matt
Bladowski and Rosemary A. McGowan.
This is the assigned case for the assessment however, if you would like to use a
different case OR your own experiences this is a possibility, but you will need to
check with the module leader first.

Where can I find this case?

• Reading List on BB – Under Case Study -
Chapter 1.5
• You can find a scanned copy of the case in the
assessment brief section on Blackboard too
Formatting & Word Limit
Please use the following file format: Word.
All work should be word processed in 12-point font Arial and single spaced.

The first page of your coursework must include:

 Your student number
 The module name and number
 Your word count
 The coursework title

Part 1: This should be approximately 200 words per topic with a max. of 2500 words.
Part 2: A maximum word limit of 2000 words.
 There is no +/- 10% on word count and anything after the maximum word count will
not be marked, in line with UWE Bristol’s Word Count Policy.
 In line with UWE policy, this word count includes everything in the main body of the
text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists, etc.).
 The references, bibliography and footnotes (provided footnotes only include
references) are NOT included in this word count.
Referencing and Assessment Offence
Please ensure you reference all sources used when developing your assessment,
using the UWE Harvard system. Failure to properly reference your work to original
source material can be grounds for the assessment offence of plagiarism and may
result in failure of the assessment or more serious implications. Further guidance on
correct referencing is available on UWE’s Study Skills referencing pages.

Assessment Offences
• Academic misconduct
• Cheating
• Plagiarism
• Collusion

UWE’s Assessment Offences Policy

Text-matching software (e.g., SafeAssign) is used to check every submission against

other submissions made at the same time, previous submissions to UWE and other
universities, and internet sources. We may also manually search for matches.
Referencing and Assessment Offence
It is an assessment offence to:
• copy work from any source, including your own previous assessments, and
present it as your own work for this assessment, or to provide your own
work to others

• to work with others on the assessment in any way, or for anyone to make
amends on your work (including proof-readers, who may highlight issues
but not edit the work)

• change individual words but keep, essentially, the same sentences and/or
structures from other sources: this will be detected by text-matching
software. Please write in your own words and style to convey your own
learning.
  Unders Linking Critical Writin
tandin theory evalua g and
g of and tion presen
the practic and tation:
theory e: cohere concise
& Insigh nt ness,
literat tful argum clarity,
ure: analysi ent: spellin
Aware s of Well- g,
ness of the reason gram
and case ed mar,
refere integr critical and
nce to ating engag writte
a theory ement n in an
range and and approp
of practic suppor riate

The Marking Criteria

approp e ted acade
riate logical mic
and argum style
Criterion releva ent.
nt
literat
ure
70% or A Demon Insigh Excelle Excelle
above strates tful nt nt
an analysi eviden presen
excelle s that ce of tation.
nt highlig sound Clear
knowl hts judge use of
edge and ment, langua
and expose critical ge.
unders s key thinkin
tandin issues. g and
g of well
theori suppor
es and ted
concep evalua
ts tions.
used.

Concis
e and
Extensi precise
ve summ
integr ary.
ation
of
theory Develo
Extensi and pment
ve practic of
refere e. strong,
nce to Well- cohere
a wide chosen nt
range numbe argum
of r and ent
releva quality which
nt of consist
literat exampl ently
ure. es. integr
Refere ates
ncing the
is three
exempl theme
ary. s and
shows
a clear

  Understanding of Linking theory and Critical evaluation and Writing and

line of
though
t.
60% - B Demon Percep Good Good
69% strates tive eviden presen
a good analysi ce of tation
knowl s that judge which
edge explor ment, compli
and es critical es
unders import thinkin with
tandin ant g and guideli
g of issues. suppor nes.
theori t for Good
es and evalua use of
concep tions. langua
ts ge.

the theory & practice: Insightful coherent argument: Well- presentation:

used.

Good
integr
ation

Criterion literature: Awareness analysis of the case reasoned critical engagement conciseness,
of Develo
theory pment Predo
Refere and of a minan
nce to practic cohere tly
a good e. nt concise
range Good argum and
of numbe ent precise
releva r and which summ
nt quality integr ary.
literat of ates
ure. exampl the
Refere es three
ncing used. theme
is s and
consist has a
ently narrati

of and reference to a integrating theory and and supported logical clarity, spelling,
accura ve
te. thread
.
50% - C Demon ReasonAdequ Presen
59% strates able ate tation
adequ analysi eviden compli
ate s but ce of es
knowl in sound with
edge places judge guideli
and lapses ment nes.
unders into with Meani
tandin descripsome ng is
g of tion of attemp clear
theori practic t at though
es and e critical there
concep and/or thinkin may
ts theory g and be

range of appropriate practice argument. grammar, and

used. rather suppor some
than t for proble
analysi evalua ms
s. tions. with
langua
ge.

and relevant written in an

Adequ
ate
refere
nce to Some Has a
releva linkag basic
nt e argum Summ
literatbetwe ent ary
ure. en but could
Refere theory someti be
ncing and mes more
is practic difficul concise
accura e and t to and
te in an follow. precise
the adequ The .

literature appropriate
main. ate three
numbe theme
r and s may
quality not be
of well
exampl integr
es. ated,
and
the
narrati
ve
thread
may
be
confusi
ng in
places.

academic style
<50% D Demo Some Poor Poor
nstrat analysi judgm presen
es a s but ent tation.
weak tends and Langua
knowl to be some ge
edge descripunsupp confus
and tive of orted ed and
unders practic asserti incohe
tandin e ons. rent.
g of and/or No Poor
theori theory eviden acade
es and ce of mic
concep critical style.
ts reflecti
used. on.

No
linkag
e
betwe
<50 D
Fails to
summ
Demonstrates a weak Some analysis but Poor judgment and some Poor
% knowledge and tends to be descriptive unsupported assertions. No presentation.
Few en No arise
refere theory argum the
nces to and ent. key
releva practic Poor points.
nt e and handli
literat weak ng of
ure. or few the
No exampmateri
more les. al and
than little
lecture narrati
materi ve
al. thread
Refere .
ncing
is

understanding of of practice and/or evidence of critical reflection. Language

inaccur
ate/w
eak.

theories and theory confused and

concepts used. No argument. Poor handling incoherent. Poor
No linkage between of the material and little academic style.
Few references to theory and practice narrative thread.
relevant literature. and weak or few Fails to
No more than lecture examples.   summarise the
material. key points.
Referencing is
inaccurate/weak.
<50% D Demonstrates a weak knowledge and Some analysis but tends to be Poor judgment and some unsupported Poor presentation.

The Marking Criteria

understanding of theories and descriptive of practice and/or assertions. No evidence of critical reflection. Language confused and
concepts used. theory incoherent. Poor
academic style.
No argument. Poor handling of the material
Few references to relevant literature. No linkage between theory and and little narrative thread.
No more than lecture material. practice and weak or few examples. Fails to summarise the
Referencing is inaccurate/weak. key points.
  Understanding of Linking theory and   Critical evaluation and
Writing and
the theory & practice: Insightful coherent argument: Well-
presentation:
Criterion literature: Awareness analysis of the case reasoned critical engagement
conciseness,
of and reference to a integrating theory and and supported logical
clarity, spelling,
range of appropriate practice argument. grammar, and
and relevant written in an
literature appropriate
academic style
50% C Demonstrates Reasonable analysis Adequate evidence of sound Presentation
- adequate knowledge but in places lapses judgement with some attempt complies with
59% and understanding of into description of at critical thinking and guidelines.
theories and practice and/or theory support for evaluations. Meaning is clear
concepts used. rather than analysis. though there
Has a basic argument but may be some
Adequate reference Some linkage between sometimes difficult to follow. problems with
to relevant literature. theory and practice The three themes may not be language.
Referencing is and an adequate well integrated, and the
accurate in the main. number and quality of narrative thread may be Summary could
examples. confusing in places. be more concise
and precise.
The Marking Criteria
  Understanding of Linking theory and Critical evaluation and Writing and
the theory & practice: Insightful coherent argument: Well- presentation:
Criterion literature: analysis of the case reasoned critical engagement conciseness,
Awareness of and integrating theory and and supported logical clarity, spelling,
reference to a range practice argument. grammar, and
of appropriate and written in an
relevant literature appropriate
academic style
60% B Demonstrates a Perceptive analysis Good evidence of judgement, Good
- good knowledge that explores critical thinking and support presentation
69% and understanding important issues. for evaluations. which complies
of theories and with guidelines.
concepts used. Good integration of Development of a coherent Good use of
theory and practice. argument which integrates language.
Reference to a good Good number and the three themes and has a
range of relevant quality of examples narrative thread. Predominantly
literature. used. concise and
Referencing is precise
consistently summary.
accurate.
  Understanding of the theory & Linking theory and practice: Critical evaluation and coherent argument: Writing and
literature: Awareness of and Insightful analysis of the case Well-reasoned critical engagement and presentation:

The Marking Criteria

reference to a range of appropriate
Criterion and relevant literature
integrating theory and practice supported logical argument. conciseness, clarity,
spelling, grammar, and
written in an appropriate
academic style

  or A Demonstrates
70% Understanding of Insightful
an excellent knowledge Linking theory
analysis and
that highlights Critical
Excellent evaluation
evidence and
of sound judgement, Writing
Excellent and
presentation.
above and understanding of theories and and exposes key issues. critical thinking and well supported Clear use of language.
the theory &
concepts used. practice: Insightful coherent argument: Well-
evaluations. presentation:
Criterion literature: analysis of the case
Extensive integration of theory and
reasoned critical engagement Concise conciseness,
and precise
Awareness
Extensive reference ofrange
to a wide andof practice.
integrating theory
Well-chosen and Development
number and and supported logical
of strong, coherent argument clarity, spelling,
summary.
relevant literature. Referencing is
exemplary.
reference to a rangequality of examples.
practice which consistently integrates the three
argument.
themes and shows a clear line of thought.
grammar, and
of appropriate and written in an
relevant literature appropriate
academic style
70% or A Demonstrates an Insightful analysis that Excellent evidence of sound Excellent
above excellent highlights and exposes judgement, critical thinking presentation.
knowledge and key issues. and well supported Clear use of
understanding of evaluations. language.
theories and Extensive integration of
concepts used. theory and practice. Development of strong, Concise and
Well-chosen number coherent argument which precise
Extensive reference and quality of consistently integrates the summary.
to a wide range of examples. three themes and shows a
relevant literature. clear line of thought.
Referencing is
exemplary.
Questions?
Structuring Part 2 – to read over in your
own time
Introduction: Gives an overview of the argument and orientates the reader.
This should include a brief outline of the case, a brief outline of the topics you are going to use
and overall, using theory, what are you going to tell us about the case.?
Main Body: Explores your main argument in relation to the three topic.
Here you are likely to have 3 sections - one for each topic. Each section needs to bring relevant
theory together to help us better understand the case. For example, if you have chosen the topic
of culture, how can we use theories of culture to help us understand what has happened in the
case? This is your critical analysis. To really enhance your critical analysis, use a variety of different
readings to discuss the point you want to make. You will need to use signposting to keep on track
and ensure the argument of your essay is clear at all times.
Critical evaluation can be demonstrated in many ways, including:
 Considering alternative explanations. Introduce a range of theory/literature to show you
recognise different views.
 Recognise limitations of an approach/theory/model etc.
 Having an integrating argument which leads the reader through your discussion also
demonstrates critical scholarly skills.
 
Conclusion: A very brief conclusion which summarises your main points made in your main body.
Structuring your case analysis
Introduction
• Orientate the reader
• Identify the focus
• State your argument.
• Brief statement about the structure

Main Body
• Organised according to argument points
• Theory/academic literature and simulation examples supporting argument points.
• Has a narrative thread
• Be analytical, critical and evaluative in tone and content
• Focused on your overall argument
• Concludes with recommendations derived from analysis.

Conclusion
• Summarise key points in relation to argument
• Link back to general introductory comment
• No new ideas!!
 Writing your introduction
This orientates the reader to what you are going to explore in the
rest of the essay. It needs to include:
– What you are going to argue,
– A brief statement about the three topics you are going to
use theories/academic literature to critically analyse the
case
– A very brief statement on how you intend to structure your
discussion.

Write an outline of your introduction. Check you have included

• Your overall argument Remember to
revisit and revise
• Three themes your introduction
after your have
• Something about the structure finished your final
draft !
Writing you main body:
Demonstrating Criticality Be careful to avoid too much
description – you will need to
 Question what you have read describe the case and the
theory a little, but limit this
and focus more on analysis
 Provide different view points and evaluation instead.

 Contrast & compare the relevance of theories

when you analyse your experience
 Understand the limitations of a view point,
perspective and/or theory
*Being critical is
 Develop a line of reasoning or argument
key to picking up
 Use a wide range of theories to make your marks*
points

Remember to support what you say by correctly referencing the source of

the idea and use academic references.
Writing your main body
Argument 2:
This is organised according to your • Topic (include
argument points – linking your theory/literature)
argument points to your overall • Example from the Case
argument and signposting the reader • Link the case and the
to this is key to creating a logical flow theory together
to your report. • Critical analysis of topic,
theory and case

OVERALL
Argument 1: ARGUMENT
• Topic (include
theory/literature)
• Example from the Case Argument 3:
• Topic (include
• Link the case and the
theory/literature)
theory together
Each paragraph • Example from the Case
• Critical analysis of topic,
should explore 1 • Link the case and the
theory and case idea/argument theory together
• Critical analysis of topic,
theory and case
NB: You will have more than three points!
Writing your conclusion
This is the point where you should be able to sit back and
relax a little. Here you are just summarising what you have
already said.

Double check that you have:

 Summarised key points in relation to argument

 Linked back to general introductory comment
 Haven’t presented any new ideas

*This will be a good time to revisit your

introduction and make sure they are linked!*