Page 1 of 5 HM3031 Leadership Development Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines Trimester T1 2020 Unit Code HM3031 Unit Title Leadership Development Assessment Type Group Report Assessment Title Group Assignment Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping) 1) Recognise the difference between managing and leading and the importance of good leadership in an organisation. 2) Be able to appropriately respond to ethical, legal and strategic concerns relating to human resource and organisational leadership. 3) Explain how different leadership approaches can be used in different situations. Weight 40% of the total assessments Total Marks 40 Word limit Report: Not more than 3000 words Due Date Friday 11:59 pm of Week 10 Submission Guidelines  All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.  The assignment must be in MS Word format, single line spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.  Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style. A minimum of 10 peer-reviewed references is required. Page 2 of 5 HM3031 Leadership Development Assignment 1 Specifications Purpose: Teams of approximate 4 students will work together to analyse a leadership situation (see case study “A meeting of the minds?”, at the end of this document). You will be required to consider various topics and concepts from the unit to analyse elements of the case study and provide meaningful and justified recommendations for future actions/strategies going forward. Make sure to refer to relevant theories and concepts in each section of the report. Assignment Structure should be as the following: Required report structure below (word count recommendations are approximate): 3000 words 1. An introduction the purpose and the content of the report. 2. Identify the differences between the management duties and leadership duties the leader is facing in the case study. 5. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to the: a. Legal concerns b. Ethical concerns c. Strategic concerns 6. Make recommendations on the given situation: a. Leadership behaviour, attitude and style b. Conflict resolution c. Developing teamwork 7. Summary Page 3 of 5 HM3031 Leadership Development Marking criteria Marking criteria Weighting Report 1. Identify the differences between the management duties and leadership duties the leader is facing 10 2. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to legal, ethical and strategic concerns 10 3. Make recommendations on the given situation regarding leadership behaviour, attitude, style AND conflict resolution AND developing teamwork 10 4. Presentation and r.

1. Page 1 of 5
HM3031 Leadership Development
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2020
Unit Code HM3031
Unit Title Leadership Development
Assessment Type Group Report
Assessment Title Group Assignment
Purpose of the
assessment (with ULO
Mapping)
1) Recognise the difference between managing and leading and
the importance of
good leadership in an organisation.
2) Be able to appropriately respond to ethical, legal and
strategic concerns relating
to human resource and organisational leadership.
3) Explain how different leadership approaches can be used in
different situations.

2. Weight 40% of the total assessments
Total Marks 40
Word limit Report: Not more than 3000 words
Due Date Friday 11:59 pm of Week 10
Submission
Guidelines
along with a completed
Assignment Cover Page.
spacing, 12-pt Arial font
and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with
appropriate section headings
and page numbers.
listed appropriately
at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style. A
minimum of 10
peer-reviewed references is required.
Page 2 of 5
HM3031 Leadership Development

3. Assignment 1 Specifications
Purpose:
Teams of approximate 4 students will work together to analyse a
leadership situation (see case study “A
meeting of the minds?”, at the end of this document). You will
be required to consider various topics and
concepts from the unit to analyse elements of the case study and
provide meaningful and justified
recommendations for future actions/strategies going forward.
Make sure to refer to relevant theories and
concepts in each section of the report.
Assignment Structure should be as the following:
Required report structure below (word count recommendations
are approximate): 3000 words
1. An introduction the purpose and the content of the report.
2. Identify the differences between the management duties and
leadership duties the leader is facing
in the case study.
5. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to the:
a. Legal concerns
b. Ethical concerns
c. Strategic concerns
6. Make recommendations on the given situation:
a. Leadership behaviour, attitude and style
b. Conflict resolution
c. Developing teamwork
7. Summary

4. Page 3 of 5
HM3031 Leadership Development
Marking criteria
Marking criteria Weighting
Report
1. Identify the differences between the management duties and
leadership duties the
leader is facing
10
2. Consider how the Managing Director should respond to legal,
ethical and strategic
concerns

5. 10
3. Make recommendations on the given situation regarding
leadership behaviour,
attitude, style AND conflict resolution AND developing
teamwork
10
4. Presentation and referencing 10
TOTAL Weight 40%
Assessment Feedback to the Student:

6. Page 4 of 5
HM3031 Leadership Development
Report Marking Rubric
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
1. Identify the
differences between the
management duties and
leadership duties the
leader is facing
The duties and
differences have
been clearly
identified
The duties and

7. differences have
been mostly
identified
The duties and
differences have
been identified
briefly or with
some errors
The duties and
differences have
been identified
somewhat
The duties and
differences have not
been identified or
contain many errors
2. Consider how the
Managing Director
should respond to legal,
ethical and strategic
concerns
Thorough and
justified responses to
legal, ethical and
strategic concerns
has be made
Good responses to
legal, ethical and
strategic concerns
has be made

8. Responses to
legal, ethical and
strategic
concerns has be
made, with some
gaps
Responses to
legal, ethical and
strategic concerns
has be made with
little justification
or some errors
Responses to legal,
ethical and strategic
concerns has not be
made or contains
many errors.
3. Make
recommendations on
the given situation
regarding leadership
behaviour, attitude, style
AND conflict resolution
AND developing
teamwork
Recommendations
are thoughtful and
thoroughly justified
Recommendations
are justified quite

9. well
Recommendatio
ns are somewhat
justified
Recommendation
s are not well
justified.
Either no
recommendations of
the are not relevant to
the report.
4. Presentation and
referencing
Presentation of the
report and
referencing are to a
very high standard
Presentation of
the report and
referencing are
quite good
Presentation of
the report and
referencing
good, with errors
at times
Presentation of
the report and

10. referencing is OK,
but several many
errors
The presentation and
referencing are of a
very low standard.
Page 5 of 5
HM3031 Leadership Development
A meeting of minds?
The Indian owners of an agricultural machine company, with a
growing number of subsidiaries around the world,
were determined to improve the productivity of their operations
in Europe. To this end, they sent a managing
director (MD) from its headquarters in Bombay to head its
recently acquired company in Italy and to spearhead
changes in the running of the European operations. Before his
departure, the MD had persuaded the owners that a
cross-subsidiary team of key managers needed to be created
which, under his leadership, would harmonise the
decisions made by the two European companies they owned
(one in Italy and another in Lithuania). This team would
eventually serve as a basis for integrating decision-making
across all of the company’s operations in Europe and Asia.
The initial team was to consist of managers from the technical,
production, quality control and client relation

11. departments of the Italian and Lithuanian subsidiaries. The team
would have its first meeting in Rome, with later
meetings in Vilnius and Bombay. The company’s infrastructure
would be updated to allow the team to meet virtually
between their regular face-to-face meetings.
The MD from Bombay regarded his first meeting with the team-
members as an opportunity for them to get to know
each other and to share information about day-to-day
operations. Once he had explained his aims to his Italian
management team, he left them to organise the meeting.
This get-together was conducted in English, which was the
operating language of the concern. After the MD had
explained his plans and the importance of the team in improving
the company’s fortunes, he asked the individual
members to take it in turns to introduce themselves. The
Lithuanian members each talked very briefly about their
positions and responsibilities. The Italians, however, found it
difficult to restrict themselves to introductions and
started talking in detail and with great eagerness about all the
machinery they were producing. There was only an
outline agenda for the meeting, so the introductions quickly
became a disorganised discussion dominated by the
Italians. They talked about the manufacturing process (‘we were
the leaders in automated production ten years ago,
but now we are a long way behind our competitors’), and
complained vociferously about the working conditions,
which the MD knew were not meeting legal obligations. The
Italians explained that the motivation of the employees
(‘absenteeism is a terrible burden . . . but you people must have
the same problem in your country’), and speculated
about future products (‘we wonder whether the company is
going to continue with tractor production’).
Unable to get a word in edgeways, one or two Lithuanians in the

12. team now and again asked the MD if they could
add to the discussion, but their requests were frequently
drowned out by the loud comments of the Italian
participants. All the Lithuanians really managed to do was to
ask occasional questions about certain products that
they were also making.
Afterwards, when the team-members were drinking an aperitif
before dinner, the MD wandered among the rather
quiet Lithuanians on one side of the room, and asked them how
they felt the meeting went. They were rather
reluctant to respond at first, but eventually volunteered a few
comments that showed their disappointment. One of
them had this to say: ‘We didn’t really get the information we
needed. We didn’t find out enough about what is
going on in your company – certainly not enough to write a
decent report. Our management will wonder what we
actually achieved here.’ The MD then went over to the Italians
on the other side of the room who were still
continuing the discussion they had had during the meeting.
When he asked
one manager for his impression of the meeting, he was deluged
with comments by everyone standing nearby. The
reaction of one Italian participant reflected the general feelings
of his fellow-countrymen: ‘I don’t under- stand why
the visitors are so cold; they really didn’t want to know
anything about us and told us nothing about themselves. It
should have gone much better – after all we speak the same
technical language!’
Adapted from: Browaeys, Marie-Joelle, Roger Price.
Understanding Cross-Cultural Management 3rd
edn, 3rd Edition. Pearson (Intl), 20150114. VitalBook file.