Guidance Note Q2: IML6102: Human Resource Management Report<\/p>\n
Key points<\/p>\n
Weighting, type & length of assessment: 50% of total module mark, written report, Total: 2500 words, c.550-650 for each task (+\/-10%) .<\/p>\n
Deadline: 7th June 2022 11.59pm. Students should submit on the Brightspace Turnitin link. (Don\u2019t leave it to the last minute)<\/p>\n
Task: Prepare a portfolio of four reports outlining the HR issues that need attention, drawing on academic and practitioner literature (80%). Prepare at least TWO recommendations for each report based on the issues you have discussed (20%). Each paper should have a (approximately) two\/three sentence summary (or two\/three bullet points) at the beginning. <\/p>\n
The assignment is based on your final 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, although use of the latter is essential. Subheadings may help in outlining your answer. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Referencing, format and appropriate sources.<\/p>\n
Format: Calibri 11, 1.5 spacing<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Use the marking scheme: Consider using the marking scheme in preparing your report (see below).<\/p>\n
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). <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Bibliography: A bibliography in the Harvard referencing format should be at the end of the report. <\/p>\n
Literature:<\/p>\n
You should demonstrate your knowledge of the current literature and the key issues in your chosen area.\u00a0 Use Proquest or EBSCOHOST\/Athens – not Google or Google Scholar – to develop your research. \u00a0Ask me or the librarians for help if you need it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Is there evidence to support your claims? Weaker assignments tend to make assertions or claims, often rather wide-ranging ones, without supporting evidence.\u00a0 Conversely, stronger assignments make clear the basis of any claims made.\u00a0 The source of any claims e.g. \u2018Tesco is Britain\u2019s most profitable supermarket\u2019 or \u2018IKEA operates in 49 countries\u2019 should be identified.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The CIPD, ACAS, the OECD, the ETI and the ILO are useful practitioner sources.<\/p>\n
Recommendations. <\/p>\n
This constitutes 20% of the final mark. They should have a sense of:<\/p>\n
Rationale. Why are you making this recommendation?<\/p>\n
Time scale. When and over what time period is it being introduced? Try to ensure it is realistic.<\/p>\n
Costings. \u00a0Some idea of potential cost of your recommendations (at this level this need only be a very broad approximation)<\/p>\n
Prioritisation.\u00a0 Some sense of what recommendations are most important or easiest to introduce (i.e. of priorities).\u00a0 Ranking them in order of importance is one approach.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
You may want to express recommendations in a landscape format (see relevant lecture). Minimum of two per task.<\/p>\n
Bibliography <\/p>\n
Essential: <\/p>\n
Armstrong M. & Taylor S. (2020) Armstrong\u2019s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, London: Kogan Page<\/p>\n
(exploring other text books is a good idea for those who can)<\/p>\n
Recommended: <\/p>\n
Pay & Reward<\/p>\n
IES Perspectives on HR 2019 https:\/\/www.employment-studies.co.uk\/resource\/2019-totally-rewarding-year<\/p>\n
Brown D. (2018) Fairness, Flexibility and Affordability, What are the lessons from recent pay and reward approaches and trends in the UK? https:\/\/www.employment-studies.co.uk\/resource\/fairness-flexibility-and-affordability<\/p>\n
CIPD (2022a) Reward: an introduction,<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.cipd.co.uk\/knowledge\/fundamentals\/people\/pay\/reward-factsheet#gref<\/p>\n
CIPD (2022b) Reward Management Survey<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.cipd.co.uk\/knowledge\/strategy\/reward\/surveys<\/p>\n
CIPD (2019) Executive Pay in the FTSE 100, Aug <\/p>\n
The Gender Pay Gap<\/p>\n
Francis-Devine B. & L. Booth (2022) The gender pay gap, House of Commons Library, 7th Apr <\/p>\n
https:\/\/commonslibrary.parliament.uk\/research-briefings\/sn07068\/#:~:text=AccordingfortheOfficefor,(figuresexcludeovertimepay)<\/p>\n
HM Treasury (2020) Gender Pay Gap Report 2020 20201126_Gender_Pay_Gap_report_14_December_2020.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)<\/p>\n
Women and Equalities Committee (2016) Gender Pay Gap Second Report of Session 2015\u201316<\/p>\n
https:\/\/publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm201516\/cmselect\/cmwomeq\/584\/584.pdf<\/p>\n
Employee Relations<\/p>\n
Rolf S. et al (2022) \u2018Towards privatized social and employment protections in the platform economy? Evidence from the UK courier sector\u2019, Research Policy, Volume 51, Issue 5, June, https:\/\/reader.elsevier.com\/reader\/sd\/pii\/S0048733322000208?token=0515DBD2ADA6CDFD3F31A7F84D00B8E9D80CC313AA4AB743F242B1D091B188B60501AD5EC0CC4C3EC08B5BD7C3C56A46&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20220515115608<\/p>\n
Staton B. et al (2022) \u2018Labour shortages and inflation: why UK labour relations are hotting up\u2019, Financial Times, 1st Mar<\/p>\n
Van Wanrooy B. et al (2011) The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study, First findings https:\/\/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/336651<\/p>\n
Supply chain mgt<\/p>\n
Aglionby J. & R. Atkins (2018) From bean to bar, Financial Times Special Report <\/p>\n
Bertrand W. & de Buhr E. (2015) Trade, Development and Child Labor: Regulation and Law in the Case of Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry <\/p>\n
ETI (2017) Base Code Guidance: Child Labour <\/p>\n
International Labour Organisation (2021) Child Labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward, ILO: New York <\/p>\n
Nestl\u00e9 (2017) Tackling Child Labour, Geneva<\/p>\n
NORC (2020) Assessing Progress in Reducing Child Labor in Cocoa Production in Cocoa Growing Areas of C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire and Ghana https:\/\/www.norc.org\/PDFs\/CocoaReport\/NORC2020CocoaReport_English.pdf <\/p>\n
Pilling D. (2019) \u2018The African farmers taking on big chocolate\u2019, Financial Times, 19th Dec Terazono E. and J. Evans (2022) \u2018Nestl\u00e9 to pay cocoa farmers to stop using child labour\u2019, Financial Times, 27th Jan<\/p>\n
Marking Scheme:<\/p>\n
Classification <\/p>\n
Content<\/p>\n
Recommendations <\/p>\n
Structure, clarity of expression & organisation of material & referencing<\/p>\n
Depth & breadth of research <\/p>\n
Outstanding <\/p>\n
80-100 <\/p>\n
Outstanding outline and grasp of key issues & concepts with a good engagement with relevant literature <\/p>\n
A strong, well argued, sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs <\/p>\n
Excellent presentation, well structured & clearly argued. Excellent referencing (in text & end text) <\/p>\n
Extensive and sound research using appropriate sources. Critical engagement <\/p>\n
Excellent <\/p>\n
70-79 <\/p>\n
Sound outline & grasp of key issues & concepts with a sound engagement with relevant literature<\/p>\n
A clear sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs<\/p>\n
Very good presentation, well structured & clearly argued. Very good referencing (in text & end text)<\/p>\n
A good range of sources & research & used appropriately. Some critical engagement <\/p>\n
Good <\/p>\n
60-69 <\/p>\n
A broadly sound outline & grasp of key issues & concepts with a sound engagement with relevant literature<\/p>\n
A broadly satisfactory sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs<\/p>\n
Good presentation, sound structured & clearly argued. Good referencing (in text & end text)<\/p>\n
A reasonable range of research including relevant cases & statutes. Limited critical engagement <\/p>\n
Acceptable <\/p>\n
50-59 <\/p>\n
An adequate outline and grasp of key issues & concepts with an adequate engagement with relevant literature<\/p>\n
An adequate sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a realistic sense of costs<\/p>\n
Adequate presentation, effective structure & reasonable clarity of argument. Adequate referencing (in text & end text)<\/p>\n
Essential cases & statutes and a little engagement with wider literature <\/p>\n
Adequate <\/p>\n
40-49 <\/p>\n
Limited grasp of the key issues & a basic engagement with the literature<\/p>\n
A limited sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a poor sense of costs<\/p>\n
Uneven but fair presentation, uneven structure & limited clarity. Fair referencing if uneven (in text & end text)<\/p>\n
Basic and uneven treatment of cases & statutes & some wider literature <\/p>\n
Fail<\/p>\n
<40 <\/p>\n
Weak & flawed grasp of the issues & poor engagement with the literature.<\/p>\n
Underdeveloped, with little sense of why they are being made, of time scales, priorities and a weak awareness of costs<\/p>\n
Poor presentation, uneven structure & poor & flawed articulation of arguments, including weak spelling & grammar. Poor referencing (in text & end text).<\/p>\n
Limited and flawed research. Limited engagement with relevant literature <\/p>\n
Total:\/100 <\/p>\n
\/40<\/p>\n
\/20<\/p>\n
\/20<\/p>\n
\/20<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Guidance Note Q2: IML6102: Human Resource Management Report Key points Weighting, type & length of assessment: 50% of total module mark, written report, Total: 2500 words, c.550-650 for each task (+\/-10%) . Deadline: 7th June 2022 11.59pm. Students should submit on the Brightspace Turnitin link. (Don\u2019t leave it to the last minute) Task: Prepare a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-97953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}