Leading Transformation and Change

Module Learning outcomes:         Tick (?)
if tested here
LO1    Examine the strategic importance of key functional areas in supporting organisational transformation and change.    ?
LO2    Analyse contemporary management challenges and organisational environments in the context of the nature and effectiveness of organisational transformation and change initiatives.    ?
LO3    Evaluate the strategic significance of effective change management leadership including skills, behaviours and competencies.    ?
LO4    Evaluate a range of perspectives and theories on the management and leadership of change in order to enhance the effectiveness of a manager’s contribution.    ?
Assessment types    Weightings (%)
Individual case study that describes, analyses and reflects upon an instance of organisational change within a single organisation, either within the UK or elsewhere.    100
Important requirements (Delete where appropriate, if other please provide detail)
Mode of Working:              individual
Presentation Format:             case study to a specified format
Method of Submission:             E-submission
Mark required to pass this coursework:     50%

Hand in date & time
Date & method by which you will receive feedback    Normally four working weeks after submission. You will receive feedback through WOLF
Resit/retrieval date    The resit assessment is a re-work of your first submission (taking into account the feedback you have received). Hand in date TBC
Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff)    No more than 6,000 words including Reference list but excluding Appendices
Do clearly state your student number when submitting work but do not indicate your name.
Always keep a copy of your work.  Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working notes, copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the sources you have used. You may need to show this to tutor at some point so notes should be clear and written in English. This is an important requirement. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.

Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance

•    Assessments are subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding references and appendices). Do not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work.  What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria (see following page).
•    Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly. Checks are conducted by both a second lecturer and an independent expert from outside the University on batches of work.
•    Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining how your mark has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved upon.
•    Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing

•    Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not required in most instances. (Refer to guidelines however in the case of dissertations).
•    The Business School has a policy of anonymous marking of individual assessments which applies to most modules.  You should not identify yourself directly in the work you submit and you may need to use phrases such as “the author of this assignment ….”in the detail of your submission.
Avoid academic misconduct
Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University.  The Business School has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.
•    Avoid Collusion. The Business School encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own when completing individual assessments.  Do not let fellow students have access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to access the work of others.  Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance.
•    Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly. Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own.  This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others.  For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously).   Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it represents a poor writing style, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.
•    Avoid the temptation to “commission” work or to cheat in other ways. There are temptations on the internet for you to take “short cuts”. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic work.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration that the submission is your own work, any material you have used has been acknowledged and referenced,  you have not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has not been submitted previously, etc.

Assessment Brief/ Task
The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
Write a cohesive case study that critically analyses a specific instance of organisational change/transformation management that you have experienced (*). Using appropriate academic sources to support your work, give emphasis to why the change was attempted, how the change process was managed, how the reality reflected in your storyline compares to relevant academic literature and how successful you think implementation was handled.
The case study MUST be structured as follows using the headings. (Italicised words are not part of the heading but are given by way of further information).
•    Title of case study (including the name of your chosen organisation)
•    Key theme (a list of up to six keywords in order to “frame” the change implications of your case study).
•    Introduction (to the theory of change)
•    Organisational background and stated need for change
•    Description of the change process
•    Roles and perspectives (of the key stakeholders pre and post change)
•    Evaluation/critical analysis of relevant academic literature (application of the theory to practice)
•    Conclusions (summary of what has worked well/not well/do differently next time)
•    Lessons Learnt: Personal and Organisational
•    References
•    Appendices (if relevant)
(*) If you feel you have not experienced such a change, then you must choose an organisation that has accessible information in relation to changes it has experienced and conduct extensive secondary research before developing your case study.
The following information is important when:
•    Preparing for your assessment
•    Checking your work before you submit it
•    Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
Assessment Criteria
The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on page 1. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked is as follows:
•    Description. Full address of why the change was attempted, the contextual environment, how the process was managed and differing behavioural and ethical perspectives.
•    Evaluation. A critical evaluation of relevant literature.
•    Analysis. Critical analysis of the change/transformation using theoretical frameworks, ideas and models.
•    Reflection.  A reflective assessment of the scenario from multiple viewpoints.
•    Presentation. A cohesive story line and balanced presentation that reflects an appropriate format and use of Harvard referencing system.

Performance descriptors
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
Assess-ment criteria    (70-100%) A
Work of an outstanding, excellent & v. good standard (*)    (60-69%) B
Work of a good standard.     (50-59%) C/D
Work of a competent/pass standard.     (40-49%) E
Fail    (0-39%) F
Fail
Description

Impressive organisational overview and its context and challenges. A comprehensive description of the change process and reflection of perspectives of key players involved.     A good overview of the organisation, its context and change process including reflection of perspectives of key players.
A reasonable overview of the organisation, its context and change process including some reflection of perspectives of key players.    Some overview of the organisation, its context and change process and reflection of perspectives of key players. These aspects could be improved upon and made clearer.    Confused overview of the organisation (possibly lacking insight), its context and change process. Possibly incoherent description in places or no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of description.
Evaluation     A fine critical review of relevant authors, rival theories, major debates and methodologies, etc. to a very good, possibly excellent (even outstanding) standard. References beyond those identified in session sources, possibly a range of extensive thought. Clear evidence of independent thought. Critical evaluation of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates appropriate to the implied case requirements.    Good use of existing academic work and some evaluation of salient theories and issues. Some review of relevant authors, rival theories, major debates and methodologies, etc. Appropriate range of references utilised. Some analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates.

The structure & focus are evident & relevant to the assessment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors & major debates are clearly presented. Evidence of suitable basic reading.    The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.    Fundamental misconceptions how to evaluate relevant academic work.  Instead the work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. Possibly too few references to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought and/ or criticality. Possibly no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of evaluation
Analysis
Demonstrates a clear capacity to apply relevant theoretical frameworks as part of an appropriate (even insightful) analysis of the change/ transformation process described in the case scenario to a high standard. Clear evidence of independent thought and very effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyse the case scenario. Possibly displays a distinct level of originality.
Demonstrates a capacity to apply relevant theoretical frameworks as part of an appropriate analysis of the change/transformation process described in the case scenario. Examples of effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyse the case scenario. Examples of sound argument and solid evidence.

The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations.  The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes.    The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation.    Fundamental misconceptions over analysing the case in the context of relevant academic thinking. Limited analysis of a superficial nature only lacks any attempt at analysis, relying on description instead.
Reflection
Original and perceptive reflections clearly and fully expressed and flowing naturally from the case analysis. An ability to successfully synthesise theoretical issues into practice and evaluate the possible implications and lessons. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. Possibly original and insightful reflections appropriately articulated which have relevance to the scenario.    The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within chosen case context.  Some meaningful well reasoned conclusions and attention given to lessons learned    The work demonstrates a competence to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within chosen case context.  Some helpful conclusions and acknowledgement of lessons learned.    There may be little evidence of an ability to apply theoretical principles to the case scenario or a wider context. Conclusions unrelated to the scenario. Lessons learned either superficial or lacking.    No application of theoretical principles to the case scenario or a wider context. Conclusions unrelated and confused or illogical and unsubstantiated. Lessons learned either superficial or lacking. Possibly no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of reflection.
Present-ation
A balanced, well structured case, generally coherent in approach. Well-written, well presented and largely or wholly free of spelling and/or typographical errors. Very good, possibly faultless application of Harvard referencing system.    A balanced, well structured case. Overall clear well-written, well presented. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Good application of Harvard referencing system.
Case is cohesive, but may be hindered by inappropriate balance, structure or writing style. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar.    Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address the case requirements overall. Possibly lacking in balance, structure or writing style. Some repeated errors in referencing and/or grammar.    Significant failings in case balance, structure or writing style. Repeated possibly significant errors in referencing and/or grammar. Critical failings in case balance. Possibly lacking in coherence, is unstructured and/or is badly presented.
(*) 70-79% very good; 80-89% excellent; 90%+ outstanding

To help you further:
•    Refer to the WOLF topic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc.   Resit details will also appear on WOLF.
•    The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx