Recent Question/Assignment

Managing Strategic Performance
Individual Assignment — 40%
Dear [your name],
I am writing to you as the Human Resources Manager of Luxcars Australia. As all of you know our headquarter is in Brisbane, Australia. Our company has manufactured sports cars since 1968. Our founding CEO Mr Lux’s strong personality has served his company and racing team for decades.
At Luxcars, we decided to redesign our performance management system in 2015. In the past we had asked employees to set their goals for each year in January. Employees had a midyear check-in with managers. They then received a final assessment and a single performance score in December. In the new system, we conducted performance feedback sessions every three months to collect insights from employees, their managers and closest colleagues in all our plants around Australia. This initiative was designed to adopt a new trend in performance management, following companies like Seek, that is said to be moving towards informal, ongoing reviews over traditional annual appraisals.
We sent an email in June asking employees to share feedback on this new performance management system. We received 59,000 comments from our employees and then organised and analysed the comments.
Employees were dissatisfied with the new performance management system. It seems they felt under pressure to constantly discuss their performance and they said they wanted to give and receive reviews less frequently. Although our initiative was meant to support our corporate strategy, we have understood that it is too time-consuming for our employees. We have also spent 160% of the previous system’s cost, even though some companies who have adopted this new method claim to have reduced their costs. We are concerned that we are wasting our resources instead of focusing on our strengths. Please help us in refining our system and recommend some solutions for change.
Kindest Regards
Your Tasks
1. Diagnose the problems at Luxcars in relation to their performance management drawing on relevant theories of Managing Strategic Performance.
2. Recommend one or two practical solutions for Luxcars to help in refining their system.
Assignment Length: 1,500 words (not including reference list).
Due: Week 8 via UTSOnline. No hard copy submission necessary.
A guide for this assignment will be delivered in the lecture in Week 7 that will also provide an opportunity to ask questions. See subject outline for details on resources and referencing.
Guidelines for Writing the Case Analysis
1. An introduction and conclusion are essential elements in any complete assignment. Insights on how to write an effective introduction and conclusion can be found in the UTS Business School’s Guide to Writing Assignments.
2. Carefully proofread your work and/or enlist a proofreading buddy.
3. Ensure you have appropriately acknowledged the original authors of information and ideas whose work you have drawn from. Of the various systems for presenting citations (acknowledgements within your assignment) and references (lists of sources used), the one favoured for use within UTS Business School and required for this assessment is the UTS Harvard system. Refer to the UTS Business School’s ‘Guide to Writing Assignments’ for the correct citation and referencing method:
4. Note that restating of case facts is not included in the format of the assignment, nor is it considered part of analysis. The audience of your assignment will be familiar with the case, and you need only to mention facts that are relevant to (and support) your analysis or recommendation as you need them.
5. Write in a formal manner suitable for scholarly work.
6. Ensure your assignment is below the stated word limit. The word limit comprises all the words in the text from the start of the introduction to the end of the conclusion (including headings, quotations and in-line references). The main reason for this is to encourage you to write in a clear and succinct manner. Tutors will stop marking when the assignment reaches the 1,500 word mark.
7. Submit your case study on time. Late submissions will incur a penalty to ensure fairness to other students who have complied with the submission deadline. Upload a soft copy must to Turnitin using the link in the Assessment folder on UTSOnline.
8. Requests for extensions must be made in writing at least two days before the due date and will only be granted in cases of prolonged illness, misadventure or other circumstances beyond the student's control. Assessments submitted after the due date, or the revised due date where an extension has been granted, will be subject to a penalty of ten (10) per cent of marks per every day after the submission date and time. Where an assignment is more than five (5) days late the assessment will not be accepted and a mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment task. Students cannot expect to receive verbal or written feedback for late work.
Case Study Marking Criteria
Below Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations
Identification and clarification of relevant case issues (20%) Poor understanding of case study and the key underlying issues with no links to subject content. Solid understanding of case study and the key underlying issues with good links to subject content. Strong understanding of case study and the key underlying issues with clear links to subject content.
Reference to and use
of relevant theories
(35%) Inappropriate or irrelevant theories were used for the identified problems and/or poor to no use of theories, with no attempts made to conduct further research beyond the lecture content and set readings. Appropriate theories were selected based on problems identified. The links to the problems could potentially be clearer and some original research was carried out to extend lecture content, but more could have been done. Appropriate theories were selected based on problems identified and further original research was carried out to extend lecture content.
Explanation of creative
and practical solutions
(35%) Vague, generic or unoriginal
recommendations. Little to no practical considerations were given to proposed solutions (i.e., they are implausible or unfeasible). Solutions are not supported by research. Solid and relatively original
recommendations. Some good consideration given to practicality of proposed solutions. Solutions supported by research, but perhaps closely following the lecture content with room for further research. Original, creative and novel
recommendations. Proposed solutions are practical and plausible; compelling reasons are offered for their feasibility. Solutions supported by extensive original research.
Presentation and language (10%) Multiple errors in grammar and expression and/or poor structure. Accurate grammar, expression and good structure. Could be more succinct or eloquent in places. Excellent written expression, grammar and structure.
Referencing Incorrect referencing or inadequate referencing. Little evidence that a referencing style guide has been consulted.
Failure to consult the set reading. Mostly correct referencing with some inconsistency, maybe need to reference more throughout the assignment. Full and correct in-text and end of assignment references. Good selection of appropriate, high-quality sources.