Portfolio Part 1: Reflective paper comparing traditional and contemporary approaches of management
- Write a short reflective paper based on the content covered in weeks 1 to 6 by comparing traditional (classical) and contemporary approaches of management.
- Recommended word count: 500 words (please note the overall word limit of 1,500 words for parts 1 and 2 in this portfolio)
Learning Outcome (LO)
LO1: Identify major developments in the history of managerial thought
LO2: Understand the impact between classical and contemporary approaches to management
Your task:
In this part of the portfolio your academic essay should:
Compare classical and contemporary approaches of management as discussed in the Competing Values Framework by clearly showing the knowledge you gained in the lectures/seminars and by including the literature recommended.
You will have received formative feedback by completing the weekly quizzes on WebLearn about your knowledge about the discussed topics and your essay writing.
Assessment criteria:
- Presents an understanding of the historical development of management theory by using the Competing Values Framework.
- Discusses management theories and compares approaches.
- Presents work clearly and accurately using the appropriate personal expression and organisational form (ie follows recommended structure, uses third person to refer to information from literature and references sources correctly by using the Harvard Referencing System).
Portfolio part 2: Individual Paper based on group project
Write an academic essay based on the content (weeks 8 to 12) and experiences (group presentation and own behaviours) by using teamwork and motivational theories and the Competing Values Framework.
Learning outcome (LO):
LO1: Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of teams and motivational theories reflect on own management and employability skills
LO2: Demonstrate understanding of the key skills required in becoming a manager
This part of the portfolio is based on a group presentation (formative assessment), which you carried out during the semester. Should you have not taken part in this you can use any experience from a group presentation to reflect on.
- By looking back at the experience of the group presentation, write a reflection on your group work using teamwork and motivational theories.
- Based on the information you gathered about your own actions in this process: How would you describe yourself using the CVF’s Action Imperatives discussed in workshop 9?
Assessment criteria:
- Explains in depths how content and process theories can be used to improve motivation and productivity in a team.
- Describes very relevant and theoretically sound techniques to improve teamwork by using the literature used in class.
- Application of the CVF, referring to own actions and behaviours in a very reflective manner.
- Structure, referencing, research.
The work shows:
Part 1: Good descriptive understanding of development of managerial theories shown with some ability to make links across topics and synthesise learning.
Part 2: Explain some aspects how content and process theories can be used to improve motivation and productivity in a team.
Describes some techniques to improve teamwork, not all based on relevant literature.
The CVF is mentioned, but the link to own actions and behaviours is rather weak. Both parts: Coherent and logical structure in most parts provided.
Attempt to use references in text and list, not always following Harvard system. Evidence of some reading.
Part 1: Overall general understanding of development of managerial theories shown but with little ability to make links across topics and synthesise learning.
Part 2: Either content or process theories of motivation are discussed. The application to the work in a team is very weak
Limited description of techniques to improve teamwork. Theoretical background is missing.
Own actions and behaviours have not been clearly embedded in the CVF.
Both parts: Some structure detectable, but not very coherent or logical.
Follows Harvard system, but not throughout. Evidence of reading is limited
