Guidance Note Q1: IML6102: Human Resource Management Report
Key points
Weighting, type & length of assessment: 50% of total module mark, written report, 2500 words (+/-10%).
Deadline: 22nd May 2022 11.59pm. Students should submit on the Brightspace Turnitin link. (Don’t leave it to the last minute)
Task: Prepare a report outlining the HR issues that need attention, drawing on academic and practitioner literature (80%). Prepare recommendations based on the issues you have discussed (20%).
The assignment is based on your first four weeks of study. It requires you to outline the HRM issues arising in the scenario. Terms and concepts should be defined where appropriate. Credit is given to students who engage with credible literature beyond the recommended textbook (an initial list is given at the end of this note, good sources beyond it should, of course, be used) although use of the latter is essential. Subheadings may help in outlining your answer.
It is an Individual Assignment, not Group work. You MUST NOT plagiarise or collude (i.e. share work, including references). This is an individual assignment to be undertaken on your own. You should your own words, paraphrase and/or quote appropriately.
Referencing, format and appropriate sources.
Format: Calibri 11, 1.5 spacing
Harvard Referencing. Reference sources in accordance with the referencing conventions recommended in the course. These apply to information taken from internet sources, books and journals and to lecture/seminar material.
Use the marking scheme: Consider using the marking scheme in preparing your report (see below).
Proof-read (and/or get someone to do so). Many assignments are marred by minor errors and an easily rectifiable lack of clarity. Proof reading will reduce this (clarity of expression is a key marking criteria).
Wikipedia/Investopedia/Tabloid newspapers. Certain sources are inappropriate for academic work. DO NOT USE THEM. E.g. the Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail are highly unreliable and NOT credible sources. While Wikipedia and Investopedia are often useful, they are also beset with error. They are NOT appropriate for academic work.
Journalism. While some journalism is appropriate (e.g. the Financial Times, The Guardian, The Economist) reliance on it should be limited. Good journalism is the icing on the cake, not the main course.
Bibliography: A bibliography in the Harvard referencing format should be at the end of the report.
Literature:
You should demonstrate your knowledge of the current literature and the key issues in your chosen area. Use Proquest or Athens – not Google or Google Scholar – to develop your research. Ask me or the librarians for help if you need it.
Is there evidence to support your claims? Weaker assignments tend to make assertions or claims, often rather wide-ranging ones, without supporting evidence. Conversely, stronger assignments make clear the basis of any claims made. The source of any claims e.g. ‘Tesco is Britain’s most profitable supermarket’ or ‘IKEA operates in 49 countries’ should be identified.
The CIPD is a useful practitioner source.
Recommendations.
This constitutes 20% of the final mark. They should have a sense of:
Rationale. Why are you making this recommendation?
Time scale. When and over what time period is it being introduced? Try to ensure it is realistic.
Costings. Some idea of potential cost of your recommendations (at this level this need only be a very broad approximation)
Prioritisation. Some sense of what recommendations are most important or easiest to introduce (i.e. of priorities). Ranking them in order of importance is one approach.
You may want to express recommendations in a landscape format. Minimum of three.
Landscape-it is in contrast to portrait.
Bibliography
Essential:
Armstrong M. & Taylor S. (2020) Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, London: Kogan Page
(exploring other text books is a good idea for those who can)
Recommended:
Key concepts in HRM
Guest D. (2017) Human resource management and employee well being: toward a new analytic framework, Human Resource Management Journal, 27 (1) pp.22-38
Hirschman A. O. (1990) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Harvard University Press
Storey J. (2007) What is human resource management? In ed. J Storey, Human Resource Management: A critical text, London, Thompson Learning pp 3-19
Human Capital, Knowledge Management and Work Design/The ‘Gig Economy
Hanley D. & Hubbard S. (2020) Eyes Everywhere: Amazon’s Surveillance Infrastructure and Revitalizing Worker Power, Open Markets https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e70dc/t/5f4cffea23958d79eae1ab23/1598881772432/Amazon_Report_Final.pdf
Duhigg C. (2019) ‘Is Amazon Unstoppable?’ The New Yorker, Oct 10th
O’Connor S. (2022a) ’Union victory for Amazon warehouse could change US labour movement’, Financial Times, 5th Apr
O’Connor S. (2022b) ‘How did a vast Amazon warehouse change life in a former mining town?’, Financial Times, 17th Mar
O’Connor S. (2021) ‘Workplace surveillance may hurt us more than it helps’, Financial Times, 12th Jan
Putnam R. (2002) Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences https://www.oecd.org/innovation/research/1825848.pdf
Sainato M. (2021) ‘I’m still in pain’: Amazon employees say climate of fear has led to high rates of injuries’, The Guardian 30th Dec
Temple-West P. & Edgecliffe-Johnson A. (2022) US executives reap record pay as historic income gap with staff widens, Financial Times, 3rd Apr
Employee Engagement
Albrecht, S.L., et al (2015) Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: an integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. Vol 2, No 1. pp7-35.
CIPD (2021b) Employee engagement and motivation https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/engagement/factsheet#gref
Gifford, J. & Young, J. (2021) Employee engagement: definitions, measures and outcomes. Discussion report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/employee-engagement-discussion-report_tcm18-89598.pdf
Green F. et al (2017) Work Intensity in Britain: First Findings from the Skills and Employment Survey 2017 https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1309455/4_Intensity_Minireport_Final.pdf
Gray, R. (2015) Is engagement old hat? Human Resources. May. pp49-51.
Guest, D.E. (2014) Employee engagement: a sceptical analysis. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. Vol 1, No 2, pp141-156.
Purcell, J. (2014) Disengaging from engagement. Human Resource Management Journal. Vol 24, No 3, July. pp.241-254.
Truss, C., et al (eds) (2014) Employee engagement in theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Talent Management
Chambers E.G. et aI (1998) The War for Talent, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 3
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2017) The Talent Delusion, London, Piatkus
Gladwell M. (2002) The Talent Myth, New Yorker, 22nd July
Hill A. (2017) ‘Executive choice: to build or buy the next leader?’ Financial Times, 22nd Jun
Marking Scheme:
Classification
Content
Recommendations
Structure, clarity of expression & organisation of material & referencing
Depth & breadth of research
Outstanding
80-100
Outstanding outline and grasp of key issues & concepts with a good engagement with relevant literature
A strong, well argued, sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs
Excellent presentation, well structured & clearly argued. Excellent referencing (in text & end text)
Extensive and sound research using appropriate sources. Critical engagement
Excellent
70-79
Sound outline & grasp of key issues & concepts with a sound engagement with relevant literature
A clear sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs
Very good presentation, well structured & clearly argued. Very good referencing (in text & end text)
A good range of sources & research & used appropriately. Some critical engagement
Good
60-69
A broadly sound outline & grasp of key issues & concepts with a sound engagement with relevant literature
A broadly satisfactory sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs
Good presentation, sound structured & clearly argued. Good referencing (in text & end text)
A reasonable range of research including relevant cases & statutes. Limited critical engagement
Acceptable
50-59
An adequate outline and grasp of key issues & concepts with an adequate engagement with relevant literature
An adequate sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs
Adequate presentation, effective structure & reasonable clarity of argument. Adequate referencing (in text & end text)
Essential cases & statutes and a little engagement with wider literature
Adequate
40-49
Limited grasp of the key issues & a basic engagement with the literature
A limited sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a poor sense of costs
Uneven but fair presentation, uneven structure & limited clarity. Fair referencing if uneven (in text & end text)
Basic and uneven treatment of cases & statutes & some wider literature
Fail
<40
Weak & flawed grasp of the issues & poor engagement with the literature.
Underdeveloped, with little sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a weak awareness of costs
Poor presentation, uneven structure & poor & flawed articulation of arguments, including weak spelling & grammar. Poor referencing (in text & end text).
Limited and flawed research. Limited engagement with relevant literature
Total:/100
/40
/20
/20
/20