ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF - PART B
Subject Code and Title MGT600 Management, People and Teams
Assessment Part B: Peer Review
Length Part B Peer Review – up to 1250 words
Learning Outcomes Part B
a) Critically assess the key principles and theories underlying strategic people management and explain how their application enhances organisational and individual performance.
b) Critically evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches and the relationships between effective people management and organisational performance.
Submission Part B: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday Module 6.1 (week 11)
Weighting Part B 25%
Total Marks 25 marks
This assessment is designed for you to experience the challenges that managers face in thinking strategically, conceptually and analytically to create effective organisations and productive work environments. You will need to clearly communicate your ideas and critique the ideas of others. Assessment 3 is in two parts and this is Part B.
In Part A, the thinking focused on strategic issues from modules five and six in relation to management, people and teams, whilst forcing you to integrate the underlying principles discussed in earlier modules.
Part B requires you to critique the Part A video of another student. Though challenging, this process requires you to consolidate your own understanding of relevant concepts and principles, as well as drawing on your communication skills to provide effective feedback.
Instructions: Part B
You will be required to review the Part A video presentation of another student.
Your facilitator will pair you with another student and you will be provided with a link to view the relevant presentation. You are not required to meet, hold discussions with or provide any feedback to the other student. Your review is submitted to the facilitator only.
This review will be a written response of no more than 1250 words and whilst you will have limited information and understanding of the other student’s context and challenges, you are to provide feedback in the following:
• Consideration of relevant theory and concepts and their application to the issues raised.
• Integration of concepts and appreciation of their implications
• Communication style and effectiveness
• Strengths of the presentation
• Areas for development or further consideration
Your response should take into consideration the key principles discussed in relation to communication and performance management.
A constructive review will require you to have a solid understanding of all topics covered in this subject.
Your review may take a variety of forms but must be within the word limit and include:
• Cover page
• A short introduction
• A review of the presentation including the points mentioned above
• A short conclusion
• Reference list
Your review will be assessed against the learning rubric below taking into consideration the above requirements.
You must recognise all sources of information; including images that you can include in your work. Reference your work according to the APA 6th edition guidelines. Please see more information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing Submission Instructions:
Submit your Peer Review analysis in Assessment 3 Part B Peer Analysis submission link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site. A rubric will be attached to the assessment. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Your reports will be marked against the rubric which is show on the next pages. Please ensure that your submission addresses all four of the Assessment Attributes in the rubric.
Learning Rubric: Assessment 3 (Part B) Peer Review
Assessment Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% Pass
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
75 -84% High Distinction
Knowledge and understanding (technical and
models and concepts
Percentage for this
Limited understanding of required concepts
Key components of the assignment are not addressed.
Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.
Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.
Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning.
knowledge to practise
Evaluation and critique Show a clear understanding of the practical application and Limited understanding of the internal and external business environment.
Understands the internal and external business environment including commercial context and market forces.
Accesses relevant information. Understands the impact of financial, social, political, environmental issues on the business.
Understands the business.
Identify logical flaws. Evaluates the impact of financial, social, political, environmental issues on the business; and where relevant, as they relate to different countries where the business may operate. Analyses the impact of financial, social, political, environmental issues on the business; and where relevant, as they relate to different countries where the business may operate.
implications of key
concepts and principles
Percentage for this
Uses a limited range of information as the basis of critique and feedback. Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.
Adequately utilises information from a variety of sources.
Gathers/utilises competitor knowledge.
Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Questions viewpoints of experts.
Understands the business and its risks.
Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.
Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability. Holistic understanding of business and its risks.
Information is taken from sources with a high level of
interpretation/evaluatio n to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Identifies gaps in knowledge.
Exhibits intellectual independence, rigor, good judgement and adaptability.
with clear flow of ideas
Percentage for this
30% Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.
Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Line of reasoning is easy to follow.
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
Demonstrates cultural sensitivity.
Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity.
Correct citation of key
resources and evidence
Professional presentation, well written and meeting APA guidelines for referencing
Percentage for this
10% Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence.
Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence.