MGMT 401 Contemporary Management and Leadership
Assessment Overview
Assessment
AT1 Group Case Analysis Report and Presentation
Mark
Total 30
(18 written report, 10 presentations, and 2 for peer- evaluation)
Due Date
11.55pm Sunday, Week 5
Word limit
2000
Submission method
Written report and peer review form-Turnitin in (.pdf) or Word (.doc),
Presentation Slides: Turnitin in (.pdf) or Powerpoint (.ppt)
Presentation-In class
Other requirements
Report and Peer Review Form:
o Use 12 pt font
o Double-space your document to allow room for feedback
o State your team name/number, team
members names and student numbers in the document header
o State the word count in the document header
o Include a bibliography (Max of 10 references, half of which must be academic journal
articles)
o Comply with the APA referencing style
o Each team member must complete and
separately submit a formal group work peer and self-evaluation form, available on
eLearning
Presentation:
o All team members must be presented for the presentations
o Presentation slides are to be submitted at the same time as your report
Assessment Details
For this assessment, your team will be required to choose an organisational case
study of the four cases provided, conduct a thorough analysis of the case, employing relevant management theories and write your findings in 2000 words.
You are required to substantiate the analysis of your selected case with relevant literature and explanation.The Presentation will consist of a 10-15 minutes presentation time followed by a 5-to- 10 minutes Q&A session and will be held during the allocated time in tutorial in week 5 and 6.One submission only per team for report and presentation slidesIndividual submissions are required for the peer and self-evaluation form
Important discussion points for consideration in your assessment
You will be assessed on your understanding of management theories and concepts studied from Week 1 to Week 4.
Some points to be addressed in the Case Analysis Report & Presentation may include, but not limited to
1. Environmental analysis: What are the different factors of general and specific environment mentioned in the chosen case and their impact on organisations.
2. Level of strategies: Explain the corporate level strategy and business level strategy (as covered in the MGMT401 course). From the chosen case, provide one example of each level of strategy examples and critically analyse them.
3. Type of strategy: (low cost and differentiation as covered in the MGMT401 course): What type of a business level strategy is used by the chosen organisation along with examples and critically analyse them?
4. Organisational culture: Analyse different characteristics of the chosen organisations culture (e.g., strong or weak, decision making, employee participation etc.) along with explanation and examples from the case and through other reading.
5. Competitive advantage: What competitive advantage/s the chosen company has/have and how the company has leveraged on that competitive advantage/s.
6. Stakeholders: what are different Stakeholders addressed in the chosen case, their importance, along with specific examples from the case.
Marking criteria:
Refer to marking rubric below
What if I Miss the Assessment?
You must complete the AT1 on the due date and time.Late submissions: You may be penalised for failing to submit an assessment task on time. If you do not have authorisation, you may be penalised five (5) percent ofawarded marks per day for up to five (5) days; thereafter your submission may not be accepted, and you may be awarded zero marks.If you miss the AT1 ONLY for following reasons, you may apply for special consideration:acute illness orloss or bereavement orhardship/trauma ortechnological problems which could not be anticipated or avoidedTo apply for special consideration, fill the following form and attach evidence to support your reason for seeking special consideration (with 5 days of the due date).
o Special Consideration Application Form Link
If your reason is invalid, if you do not provide evidence, or your application is not made within 5 days of due date your application will be rejected, and you will lose 10 marks for this course.
Can I Use Generative Artificial Intelligence for this Assessment?
You may use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Co Pilot ONLY to research and brainstorm ideas and approaches for completing your essay. Please make sure to
properly acknowledge any use of generative AI using CIM APA Referencing Guide.
Rubric for AT1 Group Case Analysis Report & Presentation
Fail (0 49)
Pass (50 64)
Credit (65 74)
Distinction (75 84)
High Distinction (85 100)
Depth and credibility of research
You have not demonstrated that you have conducted enough research (eg insufficient references to credible research or peer- reviewed academic literature), and/or you have relied on doubtful sources
You have demonstrated that you have conducted enough research (eg based on the number of references to credible research and/or peer- reviewed academic literature), and you have relied on credible sources
The depth and credibility of your research is above average (based on the number and quality of your sources)
The depth and credibility of your research is very good (based on the number and quality of your sources)
The depth and credibility of your research is exceptional (based on the number and quality of your sources)
Description of the issue/problem in terms of theories and concepts studied in this course
Your description of the issue/problem is inaccurate and/or demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theories and concepts studied (eg because of incorrect use of terminology)
Your description is accurate and demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the theories and concepts studied
Your description is accurate and demonstrates an above average understanding of the theories and concepts studied
Your description is accurate and demonstrates a very good understanding of the theories and concepts studied
Your description is accurate and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the theories and concepts studied
Coherence of analysis
Your analysis is unreasoned and/or poorly reasoned (eg because it relies on unsupported assumptions or misunderstands the theories and concepts applied)
Your analysis is mostly logical and well-reasoned
Your analysis is logical and well-reasoned to an above average standard
Your analysis is logical and well-reasoned to a very good standard
Your analysis is logical and well-reasoned to an exceptional standard
Support for analysis
Your analysis is insufficiently supported by theory and/or evidence
Your analysis is supported by theory and/or evidence
Your analysis is supported by theory and/or evidence to an above average standard
Your analysis is supported by theory and/or evidence to a very good standard
Your analysis is supported by theory and/or evidence to an exceptional standard
Creativity
Your paper lacks creativity
Your paper is appropriately creative, whether in substance or format
Your paper is appropriately creative to an above average standard
Your paper is appropriately creative to a very good standard
Your paper is appropriately creative to an exceptional standard
Use of a commercially appropriate document structure (eg executive summary, circumstances, issue, analysis, conclusion/recommendations)
Your document is not structured in a commercially appropriate manner (eg lacking relevant headings)
Your document is well structured a commercially appropriate manner (eg using relevant headings)
Your document is well structured a commercially appropriate manner to an above average standard
Your document is well structured a commercially appropriate manner to a very high standard
Your document is well structured a commercially appropriate manner to an exceptional standard
Use of academically appropriate document style, writing style and referencing system
You have not used an academically appropriate writing style and/or referencing system (eg you have used common terms or overly formal language or failed to use a recognised referencing system eg APA or
Harvard)
You have used an academically appropriate writing style and referencing system
You have used an academically appropriate writing style and referencing system to an above average standard
You have used an academically appropriate writing style and referencing system to a very high standard
You have used an academically appropriate writing style and referencing system to an exceptionally high standard
Effectiveness of communication
Your written communication is poor
Your written communication is easy to follow
Your written communication is clear and succinct to an above average standard
Your written communication is clear and succinct to a very high standard
Your written communication is clear and succinct to an exceptionally high standard
Your contribution to the group assessment task (as assessed by reference to peer and self-
evaluation and your lecturers
observations)
Your contribution to the group task was below the expected standard (eg in terms of time on task, academic rigour of contribution, cooperation with others or keeping to agreed
deadlines etc)
You contributed to the group task to a sufficient standard (eg in terms of time on task, academic rigour of contribution, cooperation with others, keeping to agreed deadlines
etc)
You contributed to the group task to an above average standard
You contributed to the group task to a very high standard
You contributed to the group task to an exceptionally high standard
Clarity of presentation
Your presentation was not clear (eg because it was difficult to follow your argument, your props or diagrams were unnecessary or difficult to follow, or you did not pronounce your words well)
Your presentation was sufficiently clear to your intended audience (of business professionals) (eg because it was easy to follow your argument, your props or diagrams
were relevant, and you spoke clearly)
Your presentation was clear to an above average standard
Your presentation was clear to a very high standard
Your presentation was clear to an exceptional standard
Depth of knowledge of presenter
You did not demonstrate that you possessed enough knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation (eg because of the language you used, because of your answers to
unrehearsed questions or because of the examples you gave)
You demonstrated enough depth of knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation (eg because of the language you used, your answers to unrehearsed questions or the examples you gave)
You demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation to an above average standard
You demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation to a very high standard
You demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation to an exceptional standard
Level of audience engagement
You failed to engage your audience (eg because you failed to create opportunities for audience engagement, dressed inappropriately or started/finished the presentation
late)
You sufficiently engaged your audience (eg because you created opportunities for audience engagement, dressed appropriately and started/finished on time)
You sufficiently engaged your audience to an above average standard
You sufficiently engaged your audience to a very high standard
You sufficiently engaged your audience to an exceptional standard
