Canvas & JIRA deadline date:

Exams and Assessments/PGBM02-First Sit/2015-2016 Page 1 of 4
Assessment Brief

Module Code:	PGBM02
Module Title:	Managing and Leading People

AssignmentTutorOnline

Canvas & JIRA deadline date: Tuesday 8th May 2018 by 16:00
Instructions on Assessment:
Produce a 4000 word report in which you critically analyse the role of Line Manager/Leader and
their relationship with the HR representative in the management of people in organisations
today.
You must make significant reference to appropriate literature and best practice.
To do this, you should pick one of the topics from across the module curriculum i.e.
 Recruitment and Selection of employees or
 Management and Leadership of employees or
 Motivating and engaging employees or
 Employee learning and development or
 Managing performance or
 Coaching or
 Managing and leading change
In your analysis you should:
 Define the key practice you have chosen
 Identify and critically discuss appropriate models relating to the practice
 Identify and evaluate the relationship between the line manager/leaders role and that of the
HR representative in the management of people (inc. such as benefits, limitations, clarity,
overlaps, tensions, devolvement etc).
The report is worth 100% of the module mark.
Word limits for assignments
The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment. Summarising and
compressing the information in your assignment into the word limit is one of the skills that students
are expected to acquire, and demonstrate as part of the assignment process.
The assignment must be within +10% of the word-count – assignments in excess of this will accrue a
penalty of 10%.
The word count does not include:

 Title and Contents page	 Reference list	 Appendices	 Appropriate tables, figures and illustrations
 Glossary	 Bibliography	 Quotes from interviews.

Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab
nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.
Exams and Assessments/PGBM02-First Sit/2015-2016 Page 2 of 4
Submission of Assessment:
All assignments must be submitted on Canvas first. A Turnitin Report will be generated, which then
needs to be submitted on JIRA along with the original file. Therefore there will be 2 attachments on
JIRA. Your mark and feedback will be made available to you electronically on JIRA once the internal
moderation process has taken place, you should note that at this stage marks are still subject to external
examiner and academic board approval.
Referencing your work
In this institution the Harvard method of referencing is used.
The Harvard method of referring to publications and of arranging references uses the author’s name
and the date of the publication. References are listed at the end of the text in alphabetical order by
author’s name. The general format of a journal reference is shown below:
Smith, J. (1999) How to succeed! Journal of Entrepreneurs , 1(2), p. 34-56
Author’s name and initials are listed first, followed by year of publication in brackets. Then there is the
title of article and the journal where article appears, which is underlined or in italics. Finally, state the
volume and issue Number (in brackets) along with the pages where article can be located.
Academic Integrity and Misconduct:
Your attention is drawn to the University’s stated position on plagiarism. THE WORK OF OTHERS,
WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS SOURCE (a
full bibliography and/or a list of references must be submitted as prescribed in the assessment
brief).
Please note that this is intended to be an individual piece of work. Action will be taken where a student
is suspected of having cheated or engaged in any dishonest practice. Students are referred to the
University regulations on plagiarism and other forms of academic irregularity. Students must not copy
or collude with one another or present any information that they themselves have not generated.
For further information on academic integrity and misconduct see
https://docushare.sunderland.ac.uk/docushare/dsweb/View/Collections-8155
Exams and Assessments/PGBM02-First Sit/2015-2016 Page 3 of 4
Generic Assessment Criteria – Postgraduate
These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working

Categories
Grade	Relevance	Knowledge	Analysis	Argument and Structure	Critical Evaluation	Presentation	Reference to Literature
Pass	86 – 100%	The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also unequivocal evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
76-85%	The work examined is excellent and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse and some evidence of originality.
70 – 75%	The work examined is of a high standard and there is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is clearly articulated evidence demonstrating that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the standard of the work will be high in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
60 – 69%	Directly relevant to the requirements of the assessment	A substantial knowledge of relevant material, showing a clear grasp of themes, questions and issues therein	Comprehensive analysis – clear and orderly presentation	Well supported, focussed argument which is clear and logically structured.	Contains distinctive or independent thinking; and begins to formulate an independent position in relation to theory and/or practice.	Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format	Critical appraisal of up-to date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives. Very good use of a wide range of sophisticated source material.
50 – 59%	Some attempt to address the requirements of the assessment: may drift away from this in less focused passages	Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance	Significant analytical treatment which has a clear purpose	Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical mode(s)	May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent position in relation to theory and/or practice.	Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format	Uses a good variety of literature which includes recent texts and/or appropriate literature, including a substantive amount beyond library texts. Competent use of source material.
40 – 49%	Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there are instances of irrelevance	Basic understanding of the subject but addressing a limited range of material	Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which lacks clear analytical purpose	Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms	Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic	A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader	Evidence of use of appropriate literature which goes beyond that referred to by the tutor. Frequently only uses a single source to support a point.

Exams and Assessments/PGBM02-First Sit/2015-2016 Page 4 of 4

Fail	35 – 39%	Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be very intermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms	A limited understanding of a narrow range of material	Largely descriptive or narrative, with little evidence of analysis	A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertion and there may be a lack of clarity and coherence	Some evidence of a view starting to be formed but mainly derivative.	Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style	Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on material provided by the tutor.
The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration.
30 – 34%	The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.
15-29%	The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.
0-14%	The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.