Assessment 2: Individual essay
14
Assessment Task 2 Due Date % SILOs Assessed
Individual written essay 1,500 words Monday 9am Week 11 30% 1,2
Grading Criteria and Feedback
See rubric
Description of Task
Choose one of the following Australian leaders:
x David Morrison, Australian of the Year 2016 and Chair of the Diversity Council Australia x Professor Ian Frazer, founding CEO and Director of Research of the Translational Research Institute (Australia) x Christine Holgate, CEO Blackmores x Stan Grant, Journalist x Bec Scott, Co-founder, Streat (social enterprise) x Julian Burnside, Barrister and refugee advocate
x Alan Joyce, CEO Qantas x Elizabeth Ann MacGregor, Director, Museum of Contemporary Art x Marina Go, Chair, non-executive director, CEO, media executive
x Or a current Australian leader of your choice (if you choose this option you must speak to your tutor to gain approval for your choice. The leader has to be a figure whose leadership approach has been discussed in writing in a publically available form).
1. Briefly describe this leader’s background – including details such as their current role and organisation, work history, educational background, family background if relevant, industry involvement.
2. Describe their approach to leadership, drawing on at least one leadership theory from the academic literature. Provide evidence to support your assessment of their leadership approach. That is, describe two specific examples of actions they have taken that demonstrate this particular leadership approach you have described.
3. What are two key challenges they have faced as a leader? How have they managed this challenge? What could they do differently to be even more effective?
4. What have you learned about leadership from studying this particular leader?
5. The essay needs to have a clear and coherent structure, be clearly expressed, with few errors. In your essay refer to at least 10 references, 8 of which need to be academic references. These could be references about the leadership theory, references about important leadership capabilities that this person has had to demonstrate (such as creating a strong organisational culture, creating a motivating environment, influencing others or managing change).
Submission Details
Papers must be submitted via the MGT3LWM LMS Turn-It-In link. Further information for the assignment will be given in lectures. Assignments must show readings from a range of academic sources. Students must acknowledge the source of all articles used using the Harvard System. You must reference any material you use which is not your own.
Should another student’s work be copied, results for both assignments will be cancelled. If you deliberately or negligently give another student access to your work, or accounts, or computers containing work which is subsequently copied by that student, it will be assumed that you have assisted that student in producing and claiming work that is not their own. It is your responsibility to keep that your work secure. Please retain a copy of your assignment.
Please note that assignments must be typed or word processed and the first page include:
• Student name and number in the top right hand corner
• Date of submission
• Electronically read word count (does not include the References or Appendix sections).
• Your file will be labelled for submission: Assessment 2 LWM_Your Name.docx
Assignments must be written in at least 11 point font, using 1.5 line spacing and paragraphs must be fully justified at both the left and right margin. Your assignment will be assessed against the following rubric.
La Trobe University
Assessment Task 2: Individual essay rubric (30%)
Criteria Marks allocated
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
1. Leader’s
Background
20%
- i.e. up to 6 marks Comprehensively described the leader’s background. Effectively described the leader’s background. Described the leader’s background, but could have provided more relevant detail. Superficially described the leader’s background and/or provided irrelevant information. Superficially described the leader’s background and provided irrelevant information. Failed to adequately describe the leader’s background. Failed to describe the leader’s background.
2. Leader’s
Approach
20%
- i.e. up to 6 marks Comprehensively described and applied a relevant leadership approach and theory, demonstrating a detailed understanding through the use of relevant examples. Effectively described and applied a relevant leadership approach and theory, demonstrating a sound understanding of this theory. Described and applied a relevant leadership approach and theory, however could have demonstrated a greater level of understanding through better explanation or use of examples. Superficially described a leadership approach and theory, and showed limited understanding of how to apply the theory to the leader’s practice. Superficially described a leadership approach and theory and did not apply to practice. Failed to effectively apply a leadership approach or theory to the leader chosen. Failed to apply a leadership approach or theory to the leader chosen.
3. Key
Challenges
20%
- i.e. up to 6 marks Comprehensively outlined key challenges faced and managed, including relevant and practical suggestions of how they could be even more effective. Effectively outlined key
challenges faced and managed with some suggestions of how they could be even more effective. Outlined key challenges faced but more detail would have been useful. Outlined some key challenges faced, but more detail was required. Outlined some key challenges faced, but more detail was required. Failed to provide relevant key challenges Failed to provide any key challenges.
4. Your
Learning
20%
- i.e. up to 6 marks Reflection showed deep insight about leadership. Reflection showed insight about leadership. Reflection showed some insight about leadership. Reflection lacked insight about leadership. Failed to show relevant insight about leadership. Failed to show insight about leadership. Failed to address.
6. Essay Structure
10%
- i.e. up to 3 marks The essay is wellstructured, with a clear framework. The essay is interesting, clearly expressed, with few errors. The essay has a clear structure and framework. The essay is well written, with few errors. The essay structure could be clearer. Some expression is unclear with grammatical, vocab and/or spelling errors. The essay structure is poor. Expression is unclear, with grammatical, vocab and/or spelling errors, making it difficult to understand sections of the essay. The essay structure is poor. Expression is
unclear, with many grammatical, vocab and/or spelling errors,
making it difficult to understand large sections of the essay. The paper is difficult to interpret, and/or is poorly presented and/or has no evident structure. The paper is difficult to interpret, is poorly presented and has no evident structure.
6.
References
10%
- i.e. up to 3 marks At least 10 highly relevant academic references are cited and wellintegrated in the essay, with appropriate formatting using the Harvard
Referencing Style. Academic references (at least 8) support the essay, with mostly appropriate citations and reference formatting using the Harvard
Referencing Style. References may be either insufficient, inappropriate, not well integrated, cited or formatted. References may be either insufficient, inappropriate, poorly integrated,
cited or formatted. References may be either insufficient, inappropriate, poorly integrated,
cited or formatted. References are inappropriate, insufficient, poorly cited and formatted. References are inappropriate, insufficient, poorly cited and formatted.