Write My Paper Button

WhatsApp Widget
Sign in Subscribe

GLB7000-30C: Change Management and Leadership

Jamez

• 13 min read

LO1 - Critically review a range of leadership models, theories, concepts and their practical relevance within global organisations

Assessment Guide

GLB7000-30C: Change Management and Leadership

1.0  Introduction

Module Code and Name

GLB7000-30C: Change Management and Leadership

Module Leader

 

Cohort

Feb 2025

Level

7

Assessment component(s)

Component 1 - Case Study Analysis (3000 words)

(Submission via Turnitin in doc.; docx.; odt.; pdf formats only).

Component 2 – Individual Reflective Poster and In-class Presentation (10 –12mins) (Poster submission via Turnitin in ppt.; pptx.; pdf formats only). (In-class presentation is a MUST, NO PRESENTATION NO PASS)

Individual/group

Individual

Assessment weighting(s)

Component 1 – 60%

Component 2 – 40%

(Both components must be passed to complete the module)

Hand in date(s)

Case Study Analysis “Component 1” - Monday 28/04/2025, 12 noon

Individual Poster C in-class Presentation “Component 2” - Saturday 19/04/2025, 12 noon. (Posters need to be submitted on Moodle BEFORE the in-class presentation).

2.0  Learning Outcome

This assessment will enable you to demonstrate in full or in part the following learning outcomes as identified in the module descriptor (delete/add rows as appropriate):

LO1 - Critically review a range of leadership models, theories, concepts and their practical relevance within global organisations.

LO2 - Evaluate the models, concepts, and techniques of change management and planning in organisations.

LO3 - Critically analyse the drivers of change and the implications to the role of organisational leadership.

LO4 - Evaluate your own leadership style to support your leadership development and implement a plan for developing and modifying your own leadership behaviour.

3.0  Assessment Component(s) - Detailed Instructions

The assessments evaluate your understanding of change management and leadership theories and your ability to apply these concepts to real-world contexts.

Component 1 - Case Study Analysis

  • Word Count: 3000 words (+/- 10%)
  • Task: Analyse leadership and change management theories as applied to a specific organisation that is currently experiencing or has experienced significant change (e.g., digital transformation, mergers, or cultural shifts). Providing critical insight into the challenges and strategic solutions within the chosen context. Your case study should provide a critical evaluation of your chosen context’s theoretical framework, based on prior studies on the relevant topics and professional sources. The module’s class/teachings will provide some knowledge of leadership and change management on which you may choose to focus.
  • If you choose to focus your case study on your current organisation, ensure you write in 3rd person.

Marking Criteria:

  • Critical Analysis: Demonstrates a strong grasp of theories and models, with in-depth analysis.
  • Application of Theory: Effectively connects theory with practice.
  • Research and Evidence: Integrates current, relevant sources.
  • Structure, organisation, and referencing: Logically structured, cohesive argumentation, and correctly referenced.

Component 2 – Individual Reflective Poster with in-class Presentation.

  • Timeframe: 10-12 minutes.
  • Format: Reflective poster
  • Task: Reflect on your leadership style and approach to change management, using the relevant theories to evaluate personal strengths and areas for development.

Marking Criteria:

  • Reflection and Insight: Clear, thoughtful self-reflection.
  • Theoretical Justification and delivery clarity: Relevant theories support personal insights.
  • Design and Visual Appeal: Engaging, well-organised visual presentation, and effective presentation skills.
  • Engagement with Audience: Engages peers and responds to questions effectively.

4.0  Assessment marking criteria (The 25-point mark scale).

Descriptor

Detailed Descriptor

Position

within band

Mark

Degree Classification

Exceptional

As for ‘outstanding’ but underpinned by originality and/or novel ideas in thinking and a strong critical appreciation of the topic. No improvement could reasonably be expected.

Upper

100

 

Distinction

Middle

95

Lower

90

Outstanding

Work that is typically characterised by evidence of the following:

  • An outstanding level of knowledge and understanding of complex issues, key concepts and principles at the forefront of the discipline.
  • Outstanding awareness of the subject and/or practice.
  • Outstanding evidence of original, independent and critical thought
  • A strong, well-structured argument that is convincing and well- supported by an outstanding range of sources and/or evidence.
  • Pushes the boundaries of existing knowledge.
  • Evidence of extensive and discriminating reading/use of source material, accurately used in support of the work.
  • Clearly structured, robust and persuasive arguments, lucidly written, use of clear and accurate expression.

Middle

85

Lower

80

Excellent

Work that is typically characterised by evidence of the following:

  • An excellent level of knowledge and understanding of complex issues, key concepts and principles at the forefront of the discipline.
  • Excellent awareness of the subject and/or practice.
  • A strong, well-structured argument that is convincing and well- supported by a wide range of sources and/or evidence.
  • Explores the boundaries of existing knowledge.
  • Evidence of extensive and discriminating reading and use of relevant sourced materials, accurately used in support of the work.
  • Clearly structured, robust, and persuasive arguments; lucidly written/articulated, use of clear and accurate expression.

Upper

78

 

Middle

75

Lower

72

Good/Very Good

Work that is typically characterised by evidence of the following:

  • A very good level of knowledge and understanding of key concepts and principles.
  • A very good awareness of the subject and/or practice.
  • Able to describe and use a range of major concepts, theories and methodologies in a very good level of detail.
  • Strong arguments which offer a good analysis of key issues.
  • Use of a broad/wide range of sources and/or evidence to support work.

Upper

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merit

Middle

65

 

  • Indicative of minor areas for improvement and contains some minor errors.
  • Clearly structured, robust, and persuasive arguments; lucidly written, uses clear and accurate expression.

Lower

62

 

Reasonable

Work that is typically characterised by evidence of the following:

  • A reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of key concepts and principles.
  • Sufficient awareness of the subject and/or practice.
  • Able to describe and use a range of major concepts, theories and methodologies.
  • Some critical judgment was offered.
  • Arguments offer some analysis of key issues, but they may lack coherence and/or supporting evidence.
  • Evidence of familiarity with key sources and/or evidence but may contain questionable interpretation of critical materials.
  • May contain some errors and/or areas for improvement.
  • Organisation and clarity of writing are sufficient standards for the reader to engage easily.
  • Needs some improvements in one or more areas.

Upper

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass

Middle

55

Lower

52

Marginal fail (Some reasonable elements but needs improvements before meeting the threshold at PGT level).

Unsatisfactory work that is typically characterised by evidence of the following:

  • A limited level of knowledge and understanding of a restricted range of issues. Poorly conceived and poorly directed to the assessment task.
  • Shows some understanding of empirical or theoretical and an inability to develop those identified.
  • Some evidence of argument but contains irrelevant or unrelated elements. The argument is superficial/shallow.
  • Some critical judgment was offered.
  • Some familiarity with basic reading material but little evidence of the use of sources and/or evidence, or overreliance on very basic resources.
  • Evidence of familiarity with key sources and/or evidence but may contain questionable interpretation of critical materials.
  • Contains repetition, inconsistencies and/or some major errors.
  • Organisation and clarity of writing are limited and insufficient for the reader to engage with most aspects of the work.
  • Needs some improvements before meeting the pass threshold at the

PGT level.

Upper

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fail

Middle

45

Lower

42

Fail (Needs significant improvement before meeting the pass threshold).

Unsatisfactory work at the PGT level that is typically characterised by evidence of the following:

  • A very limited level of knowledge and understanding of a restricted range of issues. Poorly conceived and poorly directed to the assessment task.

Upper

38

 

 

  • Limited understanding of empirical or theoretical issues and inability to develop those identified.
  • Limited understanding of argument and/or contains irrelevant or unrelated elements.
  • Limited familiarity with basic reading material and little evidence of the use of sources and/or evidence, or overreliance on very basic resources.
  • Likely to contain repetition, inconsistencies and/or some major errors.
  • Organisation and clarity of writing are limited and insufficient for the reader to engage with most aspects of the work.
  • Needs significant improvements to meet the pass threshold at the

PGT level.

Middle

35

 

 

Fail

Lower

32

Token submission

Unsatisfactory work with limited understanding of assessment. Fundamentally flawed argument and/or incorrect information.

 

20, 10, 5

 

No submission, wrong submission.

No submission / wrong submission.

 

0

 

Suspected Academic Misconduct

  • Plagiarism – Large sections of copied work (e.g., from websites, textbooks, etc.) with no attempts at paraphrasing or acknowledging the source.
  • Collusion – if the submission has a large similarity match to one or more students. Where this is suspected, both or all students must be identified (accused of the AMC).
  • High AI Score – if this is suspected, it must be considered plagiarism: ‘submitting the work or ideas of someone else as your own’. (Refer to section 10.0 C 10.1 below for further details).
  • Contract cheating – once this is suspected a viva must be conducted with the student.
  • Falsification – i.e., making up results/data for a research project.

 

1

Suspected AMC form(s) must be completed

*When using the criteria, colleagues should note that in each band, the detailed descriptor states “work that is typically characterised by”. It is not necessary for work to fulfil all the criteria absolutely. The extent to which the criteria need to be fulfilled to gain a particular mark remains a matter of professional academic judgment.

4.1  Guidance for students – The 25-point mark scale.

Your work for Level 7 will be marked using the 25-point marking scale.

This scale has 25-mark (or grade) points on it, each of which falls into one of the classes of performance which corresponds to the overall degree classification.

You can find the descriptors attached to this document. The mark that each piece of your work receives depends on the extent to which it satisfies the elements in the generic descriptors.

The person marking your work will consider it alongside the generic criteria to decide which class of performance the work falls into. The marker will then determine the extent to which your work meets the criteria to arrive at a judgment about the position (high, mid, low) within that class.

4.2  What if my module has more than one piece of assessment?

If a module has more than one ‘unit’ (or piece) of assessment, the mark for each unit is determined using the 25-point mark scale separately. According to the BSU academic policy, both components of a module must be passed to meet the pass criteria for the module. Once you have passed both components then their respective weightings are considered to produce the overall module result. This is expressed as a percentage. Your overall module mark therefore be any whole number up to 100 and is not limited to one of the marks on the scale.

4.3  Generic Assessment Criteria Staff Guidance.

1. When using the criteria, colleagues should note that in each band, the detailed descriptor states “work that is typically characterised by”. It is not necessary for work to fulfil all of the criteria absolutely. The extent to which the criteria need to be fulfilled to gain a particular mark remains a matter of professional academic judgment.

These criteria may need to be adapted for different types of assessments, particularly for those assessments which focus more on presentation and communication skills (e.g., presentations, podcasts, posters), and it is expected that this will occur. However, such adaptation must comply with the “25-point step marking” approach and the bands used must reflect as closely as possible the generic assessment criteria.

2. The criteria and the accompanying 25-point mark scale should be used where an assessment of the quality of the work is made, and a single overall mark awarded.

5.0  Referencing Requirements

https://moodle.globalbanking.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=55354sredirect=1

6.0  Word Count or Timing Limits

BSU Assessment C Feedback Policy states that word counts, and timing limits have a +10% margin for tolerance. If you submit work that exceeds this limit, no further content will be marked, hence you may be disadvantaged for failing to be concise and/or concluding your work within the specified limit.

There is no additional penalty to be applied for work submitted below the word count, but you should be aware there is a high risk you will not meet the assessment criteria if your assessment submission is significantly below the word count.

The word count refers to everything in the main body of the text, including headings, tables, figures, in-text citations, quotes, lists etc. Items not included in the word count are titles, contents pages, executive summaries or abstracts, appendices, bibliographies or reference lists. LO1 - Critically review a range of leadership models, theories, concepts and their practical relevance within global organisations.

7.0  Guidance for Online Submission Through Moodle

All assessments should be submitted to the module Moodle site (Assessments tab) by no later than 12 noon on the designated submission date. For guidance on how to upload your work to Moodle, please see:

https://moodle.globalbanking.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=55314sredirect=1

8.0  Late Submissions

If you miss a coursework deadline (unless you have arranged an approved extension), the following penalties will apply:

Work handed in after the deadline, but before the cut-off date (usually one week later), will be given a maximum score of 50 (pass mark).

  • Work handed in after the cut-off date will be marked zero (fail).

G.0 How to Arrange an Extension

Contact your Student Success Tutor at GBS to request an extension in advance of the coursework deadline. You should provide a valid reason for requesting an extension, e.g. illness, and you must support your claim with evidence.

The normal extension period is a week, anything more than a week must be applied for and approved by BSU as Exceptional Circumstances (see section below).

G.1 Exceptional Circumstances.

https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/media/bathspaacuk/about-us/policies/academic-and-student/Exceptional-     Circumstances-Policy.pdf

10.0 Academic Misconduct.

Academic Integrity is essential for the successful completion of your studies. 

If you do not understand how to properly paraphrase from appropriate sources and correctly reference your work, you risk accidentally committing academic misconduct, such as plagiarism, collusion or cheating. This may result in you failing an assignment or a module. Repeated academic misconduct can lead to more serious consequences. (Refer to Appendix for glossary on Academic Integrity).

All student work submitted at GBS is thoroughly checked by anti-plagiarism software to ensure it is your own work and not the work of someone else. Our anti-plagiarism software will compare your work to a wide variety of sources including websites, e-books, student assessments from across the world, journal articles and many more. (Refer to Appendix for glossary on Academic Integrity).

If your work is suspected of academic misconduct, you may be invited to an interview to explain how you undertook the assessment and to check your understanding of the topic area(s). If you are unable to adequately explain the above, your work will be sent to a BSU Academic Misconduct Panel for appropriate penalties to be applied.

10.1 Academic Misconduct s Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI)

‘submitting the work or ideas of someone else as your own’ (https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/about- us/governance/policies/academic-misconduct/). For 2024/25 there will be a separate category in the policy for AI.

11.0 Random Viva Sampling

Bath Spa University (BSU) and GBS use a variety of means to identify potential academic misconduct in alignment with BSU’s Academic Misconduct Policy.

To better ensure the academic integrity of all student work submitted for assessment, GBS staff randomly undertake a series of viva voce interviews (oral interviews) with a sample of students across modules covering all levels of a course.

The viva voce will be conducted by two representatives from the academic team and will require students to defend their work by demonstrating that each assignment submitted for assessment is their own original work.

If you are selected to take part in this compulsory process, you will be notified in writing a minimum of 7 calendar days before the date of the viva voce. You will also be provided with guidance on how to prepare for the viva voce effectively.

If you have any concerns or queries, please do not hesitate to contact your relevant SST.

Click here to go to our Academic Integrity course to learn more about this important topic and how you can avoid academic misconduct.

Appendix - Academic Integrity Glossary

A

Absence of Ethical Approval

Failing to obtain proper authorisation for research involving human or animal subjects as required by institutional policies.

Academic Conduct Panel

A formal group responsible for evaluating suspected breaches of academic conduct and determining penalties.

Academic Integrity

Upholding ethical standards of honesty, trust, fairness, and responsibility in all academic work.

Academic Misconduct

Actions that violate principles of academic integrity, such as cheating, plagiarism, and collusion, to gain unfair advantages.

Academic Trust

The confidence institutions and peers have in the authenticity and fairness of academic work.

Acknowledgment of Collaboration

Explicit recognition of contributions made by collaborators in a task or assignment.

Acceptable Use of Generative AI

Proper application of AI tools like summarising material or enhancing comprehension, with full disclosure and citation.

B

Balance of Probabilities

The standard of proof used to determine whether it is more likely than not that an academic breach occurred.

Bribery in Assessment

Offering or attempting to offer money or other inducements to gain an unfair advantage in assessments.

C

Cheating

Any dishonest action taken to gain an unfair academic advantage, such as using unauthorised materials or copying.

Citation / Citing Sources

Providing proper acknowledgement of sources used in academic work, following a recognised style.

Collusion

Unauthorised collaboration between individuals on assignments meant to be completed independently.

Contract Cheating

Paying or commissioning someone else to complete academic work, including essay mills and hired assistance.

D

Data Falsification

Creating, altering, or fabricating data in assignments or research to misrepresent results.

Digital Misconduct

Using digital tools or platforms to engage in academic misconduct, such as modifying submissions or unauthorised file sharing.

Disciplinary Actions

Penalties for academic misconduct, ranging from warnings to expulsion, depending on the severity of the violation.

E

Ethical Approval

Institutional clearance is required for research involving human or animal subjects to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

Examination Misconduct

Violations of exam rules, such as cheating, bringing unauthorised materials, or communicating with others during an exam.

F

Fabrication

Falsifying information, data, or citations in academic work.

G

Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI)

AI tools like ChatGPT or DALL-E are used for content generation, with specific guidelines around ethical and unethical use in academia.

Good Academic Practice

Behaviours and practices that uphold academic integrity, including proper citation, paraphrasing, and following ethical guidelines.

H

Highest Breach of Academic Conduct

Severe violations, such as repeated or egregious misconduct, result in maximum penalties, including expulsion.

I

Independent Learning

The ability to self-direct academic work and develop solutions responsibly, without reliance on unauthorised assistance.

Impersonation

Assuming another’s identity or allowing someone to impersonate you in academic tasks, including taking exams.

Indicative Breaches

Examples are provided to illustrate various types of academic misconduct, such as plagiarism, collusion, or contract cheating.

Intentional vs. Unintentional Misconduct

Differentiating deliberate violations of integrity from errors due to lack of understanding.

P

Paraphrasing Correctly

Restating another`s ideas in your own words while providing proper citation.

Peer Assessment Integrity

Maintaining honesty and fairness in evaluating the work of peers in group projects or peer reviews.

Plagiarism

Using someone else`s work or ideas without proper acknowledgement. This includes verbatim copying or inadequate paraphrasing.

Poor Academic Practice

Errors in academic work resulting from a lack of understanding or experience, such as improper citation or over-reliance on sources.

Proofreading Standards

Distinguishing legitimate editing from unauthorised rewriting or content alteration.

Professional Ethics

Ethical standards learned during academic studies are carried into professional contexts.

R

Repeated Breaches

Multiple academic violations, particularly after warnings or penalties, leading to stricter disciplinary measures.

Right of Review

A student’s right to request a reconsideration of penalties for academic misconduct based on new evidence or procedural errors.

S

Self-Plagiarism

Reusing one’s own previous work without acknowledgement or proper permissions.

T

Text Matching Software

Tools like Turnitin that identify similarities between submitted work and existing texts, are used to detect potential plagiarism.

Transparency in Methodology

Honest reporting of research methods and findings to ensure credibility and reproducibility.

U

Unacceptable Use of Generative AI

Prohibited uses of AI, such as generating original text for assignments, analysing peer- reviewed literature, or creating data outputs without disclosure.

Unauthorised Sharing of Materials

Distributing course content, solutions, or exam materials without permission.

V

Sign up for more like this.

Enter your email
Subscribe