there is one topic missing in this that is build employee capability and performance
MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx Page 1 of 8 ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF Subject Code and Title MGT600 Management, People and Teams Assessment Case Study Individual/Group Group Length Up to 3000 words Learning Outcomes 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. c) Demonstrate effective communication and practical problem-solving skills to effectively manage people in a range of organisational contexts d) Critically reflect on the roles and functions that managers perform in the context of the challenges and risks they have to address in the changing environment. Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday Module 4.2 (week 8) Weighting 40% Total Marks 40 marks Context: Though challenging, group assignments are designed to reflect the reality of the workplace. In this instance, people coming together to contribute knowledge, experience and skills to produce a desired outcome. This assessment encourages students to develop their knowledge in relation to the key topics of attracting, developing and retaining employees, teamwork, performance management, team development and change management. Students will be allocated into groups by the learning facilitator. The group will work together to analyse the given company and provide recommendations to improve on attracting, developing and retaining employees, teamwork, performance management and team development. MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx Page 2 of 8 Instructions: Your group is from a well-regarded consultancy firm and has been engaged by your client, ComSyst Technologies (CST) to provide advice on addressing a variety of challenges. CST is a multi-national communications software and systems developer serving the defence and emergency services industries. CST has offices in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Philippines, India and South Korea. CST has recently lost three major tenders to competitors and their market share has declined substantially in the last two years. This has been attributed to some significant people related issues including poor employee performance, low employee engagement, a decline in staff retention and resignations of some key specialists. Technological advancements elsewhere have highlighted a gap in CST’s technical skills and capabilities. Your brief from the client is to prepare a report with recommendations to achieve the following objectives over the next two years: 1. Ensure CST is well positioned for the future by attracting and retaining the best talent possible 2. Create a team based high performance culture 3. Build employee capability and performance To address these objectives your consulting team will need to draw on content from modules two, three and four. Some consideration may need to be given to other module content if deemed relevant. It is also expected that groups conduct research beyond the resources provided on the subject site For each of the objectives mentioned above, you must include at least one real world example / case study from the literature of how other organisations have successfully achieved the same or similar. Your group must prepare a business style report for the Chief Executive and Board of ComSyst Technologies. Whilst the format may vary, it must include the following: Cover page Executive Summary Table of Contents Introduction Background Main Discussion Recommendations Conclusion Appendices MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx Page 3 of 8 You may make any necessary assumptions; however, any significant assumptions should be detailed in your report. Groups will be assessed against the learning rubric below. Teamwork and group participation will constitute 20% of the mark for the assignment for each member of the group. Group participation will be determined as follows: Each participant in the team will evaluate the other member’s contribution using a participation score matrix (see Appendix 1 Team Participation Score Matrix) Each participant is to assess their peers according to the Peer Evaluation Grading Scheme (see Appendix 2) Each participant is also required to complete a self-review using the score/rate found in the Team Participation Score matrix. The score matrix will be individually submitted to the Facilitator at the same time as the group (collective) report submission. The Facilitator will take into consideration the average “team participation score” for each member to determine the weighted ‘Teamwork’ criterion rows in the final marking rubric for this assessment (see below). All peer evaluations are confidential and individual rankings will not be released to other members of the group. Failure to submit a self-review and peer review correctly, or at all, will result is zero grading for this assessment criteria. Groups should refer to the marking rubric to ensure all the assessment criteria are addressed. Referencing: 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: o Each group is to submit one final Case Study submission into Assessment 2 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. o Each student is to submit a completed team participation score matrix document in Assessment 2 review submission link. http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx Page 4 of 8 The Assessment 2 Case Study assignment and individual Team Participation Score documents are to be submitted at the same time for the facilitator to finalise grading for this assessment. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades. Appendix 1: Team Participation Score Matrix a) Individually, each team member will assign a “teamwork” score (from 1-5) for other members of the team/group using a participation score matrix attached to the marking rubric. b) You will need to assign yourself a participation score. c) The score matrix will be individually submitted to the Facilitator at the same time as the group (collective) report submission. d) The Facilitator will use the average “teamwork” score for each member in considering the weighted teamwork or group participation contribution to their final mark. Grading Matrix Member Name/ID Maximum Teamwork Mark (%) Average Participation Score (1-5)2 10 1 20 2 20 3 20 4 20 5 20 MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx Page 5 of 8 Appendix 2: Peer Evaluation Grading Scheme Rating Description 5 Builds team’s identity and commitment Leads team Evaluates teams’ outcomes Implements strategies for enhancing team effectiveness 4 Understands group dynamics and team roles Facilitates team development Renegotiates responsibilities, tasks and schedules to meet needed change 3 Contributes to small group discussions to reach agreement on issues Works together with others towards shared goals Renegotiates responsibilities to meet needed change 2 Participates effectively in teams Identifies team and individual goals, tasks, responsibilities and schedules Contributes to group processes Supports the team 1 Does not participate effectively in a team environment Places individual goals ahead of the group responsibility Hinders the group process and upsets the schedule MGT600_Assessment 2_ Case Study Page 6 of 8 Learning Rubric: Assessment 2 Case Study Assessment Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% Pass (Functional) 50-64% Credit (Proficient) 65-74% Distinction (Advanced) 75 -84% High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% Knowledge and understanding (technical and theoretical knowledge) Understands theoretical models and concepts Percentage for this criterion 25% Limited understanding