Transforming Self and Organisations HR9637

Module Code

HR9637

Module Title

Transforming Self and Organisations

Word Limit

The total word limit for this assessment is 3000 words (see exclusions below)

Weighting

This assessment is worth 75% of the total marks available for this module

Submission Time and Date

Thursday, 16^th January 2025 at 12:00 GMT

Submission of Assessment

Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA): This assessment should be submitted electronically online via Turnitin by the deadline above. The Turnitin link to submit your assessment is on the module Blackboard site (Assessment > Assessment Submission Points). It is your responsibility to ensure that your assessment is submitted by the submission deadline stated. Penalties apply for late submissions (see below).

Provision of feedback

Written feedback will be provided on February 14, 2025

PART A: Critical Perspectives in Management and Organisation (c. 1200 words)

According to Peter Fleming (2017), human capital theory has helped facilitate the growing individualization of work, and this has had negative effects on worker wellbeing, economic inequality, and social sustainability. Drawing on Flemings (2017) article, as well as theories and concepts from Weeks 1-8 of this module, critically analyse this claim.

Your analysis should highlight some of the transformations in management and organisation we covered in the module, explain how these have progressively altered the meaning and experience of work within organisations, and evaluate the consequences of this for individuals and society more broadly. Your analysis should demonstrate your ability to make critical connections across topics in the module in order to evaluate contemporary practices and their consequences. You should use examples presented in lectures, seminars and/or reading list resources to support your points.

Additional Guidelines for Part A:

To complete Part A you must draw on the annotated version of Flemings (2017) article titled The Human Capital Hoax, which is available on Blackboard.

Your critical analysis must advance an argument which is supported by theories, concepts and examples from the module. Support for how to develop an academic argument will be made available on Blackboard and in seminars.

Your academic sources should be drawn from the module reading list. You are not required to do any additional research to answer this question successfully, and will not achieve a pass mark if you do not utilise the reading list.

Part A of your assignment should be approximately 1200 words in length. The word count is necessarily restrictive. Focus on refining your argument and make sure your writing is concise.

PART B: Alternative Organisation Case Study (c. 1200 words)

Fleming (2017: p. 705) suggests that, the advocates of Uberization claim it is the future, no matter what. How employees, organizations and scholars respond to this proclamation will shape the politics of work to come.

Identify a case organisation that HAS NOT been discussed in lectures or seminars that you feel represents a positive counter-example to uberization. Drawing on theories and concepts from Weeks 9-11 of the module, and examples specific to your chosen case, critically analyse their approach to management and organisation. You should explain why you feel their approach indicates a more positive, ethical, and responsible alternative for employees and/or society, but also acknowledge potential limits or challenges.

Additional Guidelines for Part B:

You may choose an organisation you are familiar with or identify a suitable case from (high-quality) news or media, the reading list, or relevant databases (e.g. Co-operatives UK). Your chosen organisation may operate in the private, public or plural-sector.

You should name the case organisation, explain what they do (1-2 sentences max.), and include a link to their webpage and/or the primary reference for your case study source before continuing with your analysis.

Your critical analysis must advance an argument which is supported by theories, concepts and examples. Support for how to develop an academic argument will be made available on Blackboard and in seminars.

You may draw on the organisations own website and other high-quality journalistic reporting to evidence the organisations practices and substantiate your analysis. Your academic sources should primarily be drawn from the module reading list. All sources need to be appropriately referenced using correct formatting.

Part B of your assignment should be approximately 1200 words in length. The word count is necessarily restrictive. Focus on the most demonstrative issues and make sure your writing is concise.

PART C: Personal Reflection (c. 600 words)

The final part of your assignment should be a personal reflection on what you have learned from studying critical perspectives as a way of seeing, including what you have learned about yourself. Drawing on your Personal Reflection Log, which must be attached as an appendix, you should analyse specific knowledge, skills and qualities that you have developed through the module, and consider how these will support your ability to manage responsibly and/or bring about positive social change. Your reflection should move beyond description and consider concepts and frameworks such as The Sociological Imagination, Critical Reflection, and/or the Inner Development Goals (IDGs) in relation to your own self-development. You should also consider areas where you feel you need improvement and suggest how you may continue your ongoing process of inner development.

Additional Guidance for Part C

Where appropriate, your reflection should be supported by academic references that demonstrate the theoretical basis or philosophical importance of the skills you have developed.

The personal reflection should be written in the first person. However, it is still a formal, academic piece of work and therefore should follow other conventions regarding style and referencing.

The Personal Reflection Log template is available on Blackboard. You must attach your completed log as an appendix to your assignment. This is excluded from the word limit.

Part C of your assignment should be approximately 600 words in length. The word count is necessarily restrictive. Focus on highlighting a few key areas that have been most significant for your learning and development in this module.

Does not meet Standards

Meets Standards

Exceeds Standards

Marking Criteria

Completely insufficient

Insufficient

Adequate

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Outstanding

0-29%

30-39%

40-49%

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

Part A: Engagement

Explains and critically engages with the claim from Fleming (2017). All aspects of the assignment task are addressed.

Does not explain or contextualise the claim. Contains major omissions: i.e. Identification of key transformations is missing or incorrect, link to changes in meaning and experience of work is not developed, and/or societal consequences not elaborated.

Insufficient explanation of claim in relation to module learning. May contain substantive omissions: i.e. Identification of key transformations is limited or incorrect, link to changes in meaning and experience of work is underdeveloped, and/or societal consequences not sufficiently elaborated.

Adequate explanation of claim in relation to module learning. There is an attempt to answer all aspects of the task, but quality of analysis is variable.

Good explanation of claim in relation to module learning and Fleming (2017). All aspects of the task are addressed to a good degree.

Very good explanation of the claim in relation to module learning and clear critical engagement with Fleming (2017). All aspects of the task are addressed to a very good degree.

Excellent explanation of the claim in relation to module learning and critical engagement with Fleming (2017) which clearly informs the analysis. All aspects of the task are addressed to an excellent degree.

Sophisticated interpretation of the claim which is appropriately contextualised in module learning and demonstrates high-level understanding of Fleming (2017). All aspects of the task are addressed to an outstanding degree.

Part A: Critical Analysis

Develops a clear and persuasive argument as part of critical analysis in response to the assignment question.

No discernible argument or evidence of analysis.

Minimal evidence of analysis; Argument is unclear or poorly developed. Claims may be erroneous, disconnected, or lack support.

Some evidence of analysis. An argument is stated but may need further development. Claims are mostly acceptable but may lack coherence or require greater support.

Good evidence of critical analysis. An argument is clearly stated and claims are mostly coherent and well-supported, but there may be some gaps.

Very good evidence of critical analysis. A clear argument is developed and defended with high levels of coherence and support.

Excellent evidence of critical analysis. A clear argument is developed and defended throughout. Claims are persuasive and well-supported, with some limitations or qualifications acknowledged.

Outstanding evidence of critical analysis. A nuanced argument is developed and defended throughout. Claims are persuasive and well-supported, with anticipation of counter-arguments. Limitations and appropriate qualifications are acknowledged.

Part A: Knowledge

Draws critical connections between topics and utilises theories and concepts from the module to support analysis.

No evidence of evaluation of management practices and their consequences.

No evidence of engagement with theories and concepts from the module. No use of examples. Critical connections across module topics are not identified.

Insufficient evaluation of changes in management practices and their consequences. Theories and concepts are mentioned but may be poorly explained or contain major errors. Examples are missing or lack connection to analysis. Lacks critical connections across module topics. Evidence of engagement with critical perspectives is insufficient.

Evaluation of management practices and their consequences is supported by theories and concepts from the module but may contain some errors or lack some depth. Some examples are utilised to support individual points but may lack coherence. Evidence that critical connections from across topics are used to support claims is somewhat limited. Some engagement with critical perspectives is evident but requires further development.

Evaluation of management practices and their consequences is supported by theories and concepts from the module. Examples are appropriately chosen to support key claims. Some reasonable connections are drawn from across topics to support the analysis. Clear effort to engage with critical perspectives.

Evaluation of management practices and their consequences is well-supported by theories and concepts from the module. Examples are appropriately utilised to support the overall analysis. Insightful connections are drawn from across topics to support the analysis. Critical perspectives are clearly grasped.

Evaluation of management practices and their consequences demonstrates excellent understanding of theories and concepts from the module. Examples are effectively utilised to support and enhance the overall analysis. Critical connections drawn across topics clearly inform the analysis. Critical perspectives are thoroughly grasped and appropriately applied.

Evaluation of management practices and their consequences demonstrates sophisticated understanding of a range of theories and concepts from the module. Critical connections drawn across topics are insightful and comprehensive. Examples support and enhance the overall analysis and suggest a nuanced understanding of the subject. Critical perspectives are integral to the analysis.

Part B:

Choice of Alternative Organising Case Study

Has chosen appropriate case study, provided a brief description of the case, and included the source.

Case study is not identified or is inappropriate. Case is not referenced and/or what they do is unclear.

Has identified a case organisation but reference to the source may be missing. What the organisation does may be unclear or vague.

Has identified an appropriate case organisation and included a link or primary reference (as appropriate). Brief description of what the organisation does is sufficient for evaluation.

Has identified an appropriate case organisation and included a link or primary reference (as appropriate). Brief description of what the organisation does is clear and succinct.

Has identified an appropriate case organisation and included a link or primary reference (as appropriate). Brief description of what the organisation does is clear and succinct.

Has identified a highly appropriate case organisation and included a link or primary reference (as appropriate). Brief description of what the organisation does is clear and succinct.

Has identified a highly appropriate case organisation and included a link or primary reference (as appropriate). Brief description of what the organisation does is clear and succinct.

Part B: Case Study Analysis

Analyses relevant organisational and management approaches in the case study and develops and argument for why these indicate positive alternatives using theories and concepts from the module.

No discernible argument. No evidence of analysis or evaluation of approaches to management and organisation. No evidence of engagement with theories and concepts from the module. No use of case examples to support points.

Rationale is not easily decipherable. Argument is unclear or poorly developed. Claims may be erroneous, disconnected, or lack support. Minimal evidence of analysis and/or evaluation of approaches to management and organisation. Insufficient engagement with theories and concepts from the module. Case examples are included but may lack coherence or provide insufficient support for the analysis.

Rationale is questionable. An argument is stated but may need further development. Claims are plausible but may lack justification or require greater support. Some evidence of analysis and evaluation of approaches to management and organisation using theories and concepts from the module; Practices are appropriately identified but analysis may be overly descriptive or artificially narrow. Case examples are utilised to support individual points but may lack detail or overall coherence.

Rationale is good. An argument is clearly stated and claims are mostly justified and well-supported, but there may be some oversights. Good evidence of analysis and evaluation of approaches to management and organisation using theories and concepts from the module; The analysis indicates a good ability to draw connections between different practices. Case examples are detailed and appropriately chosen to support key claims.

Rationale is very good. A clear argument is developed and justified with high levels of coherence and support.

Very good evidence of critical analysis and evaluation of approaches to management and organisation using theories and concepts from Weeks 9-11 of the module; The analysis is perceptive and indicates a very good ability to draw connections between practices. Case examples are detailed and effectively support the overall analysis.

Rationale is excellent. A clear argument is developed and justified throughout. Claims are persuasive and well-supported.

Excellent evidence of critical analysis and evaluation of approaches to management and organisation using theories and concepts from Weeks 9-11 of the module; The analysis is highly developed and indicates an excellent ability to draw connections between practices and link them to critical perspectives. Case examples are detailed and effectively utilised to support and enhance the overall analysis.

Rationale is outstanding. A nuanced argument is developed and justified throughout. Claims are persuasive and well-supported, with anticipation of questions or counter-arguments.

Outstanding evidence of critical analysis and evaluation of approaches to management and organisation using theories and concepts from across the module; The analysis is sophisticated and indicates an outstanding ability to integrate practice-based and critical perspectives. Case examples support and enhance the overall analysis and suggest a nuanced understanding of the subject. Critical perspectives are integral to the analysis.

Part B: Evaluation

Analyses implications of alternative practices for employees and/or society as well as limitations.

Implications for employees and/or society are not considered. Limits/challenges not acknowledged.

Implications for employees and/or society are unclear.

Minimal acknowledgement of limits or challenges.

Implications for employees and/or society are stated but may require further support. Limits/challenges are identified but may require further consideration.

Implications for employees and/or society are clear and well-supported. Limits/challenges are appropriately considered in the context of the case.

Implications for employees and/or society are thoughtful and convincing.

Limits/challenges are thoughtfully considered in the context of the case. There is some link to the broader task of implementing alternative approaches.

Implications for employees and/or society reflect an ability to link complex ideas.

Limits/challenges are thoughtfully considered in the context of the case and serve to qualify the argument. There is clear consideration of consequences for the broader task of implementing alternative approaches.

Limits/challenges are thoughtfully considered in the context of the case and serve to quality the argument. There is a thoughtful consideration of consequences for the broader task of implementing alternative approaches.

Academic literature used to support critical analysis is of high-quality and demonstrates meaningful engagement with a wide range of module resources and additional research.

Part C:

Critical Reflection

Critically reflects on learning and personal development in the module and draws implications for responsible management and social change.

No evidence of personal reflection on learning. Essay is largely descriptive with little connection to personal values, skills or qualities, and insufficient links to the module. No consideration of implications of learning for ability to enact responsible management or social change. Link to Inner Development Goals (IDGs) is missing or misunderstood. No effort to identify areas for future improvement.

Insufficient evidence of self-reflection on learning.

Reflections may be overly descriptive with insufficient connection to development of personal values, skills or qualities, or may lack sufficient grounding in the module. Minimal consideration of implications of learning for ability to enact responsible management or social change. Inner Development Goals (IDGs) may be mentioned but are not supported by reflective analysis. Areas of improvement insufficiently identified with no suggestions of future development.

Adequate evidence of self-reflection on learning. Reflective analysis demonstrates some insight focused on personal self-development but may have a tendency towards description. There is acceptable evidence of links to the module. Some indication that implications of learning for future ability to enact responsible management and social change have been considered but may need further development.

Inner Development Goals (IDGs) are identified but focus is on signposting rather than skills-development. Areas of improvement are mentioned but links to reflection and means of support need further development.

Good evidence of self-reflection on learning.

Reflective analysis demonstrates sound insights focused on personal self-development which clearly links to the module. Implications of learning for future ability to enact responsible management and social change are identified but may need additional support. Inner Development Goals (IDGs) are identified and linked to self-reflection but may be lacking some depth. No effort to link goals as part of an integrated framework. Areas of improvement are identified but means of support remain very general.

Very good evidence of critical self-reflection on learning. Reflective analysis demonstrates meaningful insights focused on personal self-development with clear influence from the modules topics and activities. Implications of learning for future ability to enact responsible management and social change are identified and supported.

Inner Development Goals (IDGs) are utilised to support self-reflection, but the integrative nature of the framework may not be appreciated. Areas of improvement are identified and means of support are sound but would benefit from greater detail.

Excellent evidence of critical self-reflection on learning.

Reflective analysis demonstrates deep insights focused on personal self-development with clear grounding in the modules critical perspectives.

Implications of learning for future ability to enact responsible management and social change are clear and well-supported. Inner Development Goals (IDGs) are competently utilised to support self-reflection. The integrative nature of the framework is appreciated. Areas of improvement are meaningfully identified and suggestions to support this are specific.

Outstanding evidence of critical self-reflection on learning.

Reflective analysis demonstrates deep insights focused on personal self-development with clear evidence that critical connections drawn from across the module have been linked to personal learning. Reflections demonstrate a developing sociological imagination.

Implications of learning for future ability to enact responsible management and social change well-supported and appropriately qualified. Inner Development Goals (IDGs) are competently utilised to enhance reflexivity. The integrative nature of the framework is clearly grasped. Areas of improvement are meaningfully identified and a practical plan for ongoing inner development is presented.

Part C: Personal Reflection Log (Appendix)

The personal reflection log is completed and attached to the assignment.

Personal Reflection Log is not attached or contains major gaps.

Personal Reflection Log is attached but may have gaps and/or is completed only to a basic level. Insufficient links to IDGs.

Personal Reflection Log is completed but notes may be overly brief, mostly descriptive or lack full consideration of learning. Links to IDGs may be sporadic or need further development.

Personal Reflection Log is complete and evidences a good level of reflection on learning with some effort to link to IDGs.

Personal Reflection Log is well-elaborated and evidences a very good level of critical reflection on learning with clear effort to link to IDGs throughout.

Personal Reflection Log is comprehensive and evidences an excellent level of critical reflection on learning with clear effort to link to IDGs throughout.

Personal Reflection Log is comprehensive and evidences an outstanding level of critical reflection on learning with proactive links to IDGs throughout.

Support

High-quality academic sources (predominantly from the module reading list) are used effectively to support critical analysis and reflection.

No use of relevant academic literature.

Minimal use of relevant academic literature to support analysis, or use of low-quality resources that are not drawn from the module.

Academic literature used to support analysis may be of mixed quality but does prioritise use of module resources.

Academic literature used to support analysis is of good quality and prioritises use of module resources.

Academic literature used to support critical analysis is mostly of high-quality and uses a selection of module resources to very good effect.

Academic literature used to support critical analysis is of high-quality and demonstrates meaningful engagement with a wide range of module resources.

Academic literature used to support critical analysis is of high-quality and demonstrates meaningful engagement with a wide range of module resources and additional research.

Presentation

Work is professionally presented with clear structure and written expression, and appropriately formatted references.

Lacks clear structure. Referencing is incorrect or absent. May not utilise full word limit. Writing is unclear or difficult to follow

Poor structure. Significant errors in referencing. Writing may require significant improvement.

Structure and/or referencing need further development. Written expression is acceptable but requires improvement.

Structure is generally good. May contain some errors in referencing. Written expression is mostly clear and effective

Structure and prose are effective, but efficiency of written expression could be enhanced. Referencing is mostly correct throughout.

Structure and writing are effective and fairly efficient. Referencing is correct throughout.

Structure and writing are effective and make highly efficient use of the word limit. Referencing is correct throughout.