Leadership Development Research Paper

Leadership Development Research Paper

Instructions/Descriptions

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Unit Code HM3031

Unit Title Leadership Development

Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)

1) Recognise the difference between managing and leading and the importance of good leadership in an organisation.

2) Be able to appropriately respond to ethical, legal and strategic concerns relating to human resource and organisational leadership.

3) Explain how different leadership approaches can be used in different situations.

Weight 40% of the total assessments

Total Marks 40

Word limit Report: Not more than 3000 words

Due Date Friday 11:59 pm of Week 10

Submission Guidelines

• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, single line spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style. A minimum of 10 peer-reviewed references is required.

[Order Now]

Page 2 of 5

HM3031 Leadership Development

Assignment 1 Specifications Purpose: Teams of approximate 4 students will work together to analyse a leadership situation (see case study “A meeting of the minds?”, at the end of this document).

You will be required to consider various topics and concepts from the unit to analyse elements of the case study and provide meaningful and justified recommendations for future actions/strategies going forward. Make sure to refer to relevant theories and concepts in each section of the report.

Assignment Structure should be as the following: Required report structure below (word count recommendations are approximate): 3000 words 1.

An introduction the purpose and the content of the report. 2. Identify the differences between the management duties and leadership duties the leader is facing in the case study.

5. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to the:
6. Legal concerns b. Ethical concerns c. Strategic concerns
7. Make recommendations on the given situation: a. Leadership behaviour, attitude and style b. Conflict resolution c. Developing teamwork 7. Summary

[Order Now]

Page 3 of 5

HM3031 Leadership Development

Marking criteria

Marking criteria Weighting Report

1. Identify the differences between the management duties and leadership duties the leader is facing
2. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to legal, ethical and strategic concerns
3. Make recommendations on the given situation regarding leadership behaviour, attitude, style AND conflict resolution AND developing teamwork
4. Presentation and referencing 10

Assessment Feedback to the Student:

Page 4 of 5

HM3031 Leadership Development

Report Marking Rubric

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

1. Identify the differences between the management duties and leadership duties the leader is facing

The duties and differences have been clearly identified

The duties and differences have been mostly identified

The duties and differences have been identified briefly or with some errors

The duties and differences have been identified somewhat

The duties and differences have not been identified or contain many errors

2. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to legal, ethical and strategic concerns

Thorough and justified responses to legal, ethical and strategic concerns has be made

Good responses to legal, ethical and strategic concerns has be made

Responses to legal, ethical and strategic concerns has be made, with some gaps

Responses to legal, ethical and strategic concerns has be made with little justification or some errors

Responses to legal, ethical and strategic concerns has not be made or contains many errors.

3. Make recommendations on the given situation regarding leadership behaviour, attitude, style AND conflict resolution AND developing teamwork

Recommendations are thoughtful and thoroughly justified

Recommendations are justified quite well

Recommendatio ns are somewhat justified

Recommendation s are not well justified.

Either no recommendations of the are not relevant to the report.

4. Presentation and referencing

Presentation of the report and referencing are to a very high standard

Presentation of the report and referencing are quite good

Presentation of the report and referencing good, with errors at times

Presentation of the report and referencing is OK, but several many errors

The presentation and referencing are of a very low standard.

Page 5 of 5

HM3031 Leadership Development

A meeting of minds? The Indian owners of an agricultural machine company, with a growing number of subsidiaries around the world, were determined to improve the productivity of their operations in Europe. To this end, they sent a managing director (MD) from its headquarters in Bombay to head its recently acquired company in Italy and to spearhead changes in the running of the European operations.

Before his departure, the MD had persuaded the owners that a cross-subsidiary team of key managers needed to be created which, under his leadership, would harmonise the decisions made by the two European companies they owned (one in Italy and another in Lithuania).

This team would eventually serve as a basis for integrating decision-making across all of the company’s operations in Europe and Asia.

The initial team was to consist of managers from the technical, production, quality control and client relation departments of the Italian and Lithuanian subsidiaries. The team would have its first meeting in Rome, with later meetings in Vilnius and Bombay. The company’s infrastructure would be updated to allow the team to meet virtually between their regular face-to-face meetings.

The MD from Bombay regarded his first meeting with the team-members as an opportunity for them to get to know each other and to share information about day-to-day operations. Once he had explained his aims to his Italian management team, he left them to organise the meeting.

This get-together was conducted in English, which was the operating language of the concern. After the MD had explained his plans and the importance of the team in improving the company’s fortunes, he asked the individual members to take it in turns to introduce themselves.

The Lithuanian members each talked very briefly about their positions and responsibilities. The Italians, however, found it difficult to restrict themselves to introductions and started talking in detail and with great eagerness about all the machinery they were producing.

There was only an outline agenda for the meeting, so the introductions quickly became a disorganised discussion dominated by the Italians. They talked about the manufacturing process (‘we were the leaders in automated production ten years ago, but now we are a long way behind our competitors’), and complained vociferously about the working conditions, which the MD knew were not meeting legal obligations.

The Italians explained that the motivation of the employees (‘absenteeism is a terrible burden . . . but you people must have the same problem in your country’), and speculated about future products (‘we wonder whether the company is going to continue with tractor production’).

Unable to get a word in edgeways, one or two Lithuanians in the team now and again asked the MD if they could add to the discussion, but their requests were frequently drowned out by the loud comments of the Italian participants. All the Lithuanians really managed to do was to ask occasional questions about certain products that they were also making.

Afterwards, when the team-members were drinking an aperitif before dinner, the MD wandered among the rather quiet Lithuanians on one side of the room, and asked them how they felt the meeting went. They were rather reluctant to respond at first, but eventually volunteered a few comments that showed their disappointment.

One of them had this to say: ‘We didn’t really get the information we needed. We didn’t find out enough about what is going on in your company certainly not enough to write a decent report. Our management will wonder what we actually achieved here.’ The MD then went over to the Italians on the other side of the room who were still continuing the discussion they had had during the meeting.

When he asked one manager for his impression of the meeting, he was deluged with comments by everyone standing nearby. The reaction of one Italian participant reflected the general feelings of his fellow-countrymen:

‘I don’t under- stand why the visitors are so cold; they really didn’t want to know anything about us and told us nothing about themselves. It should have gone much better  after all we speak the same technical language!’

Adapted from: Browaeys, Marie-Joelle, Roger Price. Understanding Cross-Cultural Management 3rd edn, 3rd Edition. Pearson (Intl), 20150114. VitalBook file.

Leadership Development Research Paper

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!