Assessment 2: Analytical Report on People Management and Organisational Culture

Unit/Course Information

Course title: Management, People and Organisations

Course code: MGMT1003 (or equivalent first-year Management unit)

Weighting: 30% of final grade

Length: 1,200–1,500-word individual analytical report (excluding title page and reference list)

Due date: Week 6, Sunday 23:59 (local time)

Assessment Context

Modern organisations depend on front-line and middle managers who can connect day-to-day people management decisions to deeper organisational culture and performance outcomes. Recent management units emphasise the ability to apply classic theories of managerial roles and motivation to real workplaces, and current assessment designs expect students to move beyond description towards critical analysis and reflection.

Assessment Description

Prepare a 1,200–1,500-word analytical report that examines how one manager in a real organisation enacts key people management responsibilities and shapes organisational culture. You will observe or interview a manager (online or in person), connect your observations to relevant management and organisational behaviour theories, and evaluate the implications for employee motivation, performance appraisal, and organisational outcomes.

Task Requirements

Your report must address the following components in a logically structured way with clear headings:

• 1. Brief organisational and role overview (approx. 150–200 words)
  • Identify the organisation (use a pseudonym if required), industry, size, and location.
  • Describe the manager’s role, level (e.g. team leader, supervisor, middle manager), and core responsibilities.
• 2. Managerial roles and people management practices (approx. 350–450 words)
  • Analyse at least three key activities that illustrate how the manager plans, leads, organises and controls work.
  • Link these activities explicitly to a recognised model of managerial roles or functions (e.g. Mintzberg’s managerial roles, or the POLC framework), using at least one academic source.
• 3. Organisational culture and employee motivation (approx. 350–450 words)
  • Identify specific practices, routines or symbols that express the organisation’s culture.
  • Evaluate how the manager’s behaviour reinforces or challenges that culture.
  • Apply one or two theories of motivation (for example self-determination theory, expectancy theory, or equity theory) to explain observed effects on employee attitudes and motivation.
• 4. Performance management and feedback (approx. 250–300 words)
  • Discuss how the manager sets expectations, monitors performance and provides feedback.
  • Assess the strengths and limitations of this approach with reference to contemporary performance management literature.
• 5. Critical reflection and recommendations (approx. 150–200 words)
  • Identify two specific improvements the manager could make to better align people management practices with desired organisational outcomes.
  • Justify each recommendation with explicit links to theory and evidence.

Research and Referencing Requirements

• Use a minimum of six (6) credible academic sources (peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books or book chapters, and high-quality reports) published between 2018 and 2026.
• Cite all sources using an accepted academic style (e.g. Harvard or APA) consistently throughout the report.
• Include a properly formatted reference list at the end of your report.

Formatting Requirements

• Word count: 1,200–1,500 words.
• 12-point readable font, 1.5 line spacing, standard margins.
• Use clear headings and subheadings that mirror the task requirements.
• Submit as a Word document or PDF through the LMS submission link.

Marking Criteria (Scoring Rubric)

Criterion 1: Understanding and Application of Management and OB Theories (30%)

• High Distinction (85–100%): Demonstrates precise and integrated understanding of relevant management and organisational behaviour frameworks; selects highly appropriate theories and applies them consistently and critically to the chosen case with nuanced insight.
• Distinction (75–84%): Shows clear and accurate understanding of key theories; applies them appropriately to the case with some critical discussion and well-developed links between theory and practice.
• Credit (65–74%): Demonstrates sound understanding of major theories with mostly accurate application; some links between theory and practice are developed but depth of analysis is uneven.
• Pass (50–64%): Shows basic understanding of a limited set of theories; application is mostly descriptive with limited critical engagement or shallow links to the case.
• Fail (0–49%): Demonstrates minimal or inaccurate understanding of relevant theories; little or no meaningful application to the case.

Criterion 2: Analysis of Managerial Practice, Culture and Motivation (30%)

• High Distinction: Provides a coherent, logically sequenced analysis of managerial behaviour, organisational culture and employee motivation; offers sophisticated, evidence-based insights into how specific practices influence outcomes.
• Distinction: Delivers a well-organised analysis that connects managerial actions, culture and motivation; offers clear, evidence-based explanations with some critical depth.
• Credit: Presents a generally clear analysis with some effective connections between managerial behaviour, culture and motivation; interpretation is partly supported by evidence.
• Pass: Provides largely descriptive discussion with limited analytical depth; connections between behaviour, culture and motivation are present but underdeveloped.
• Fail: Lacks coherent analysis; discussion is fragmented, largely descriptive or unsupported by evidence.

Criterion 3: Quality of Recommendations and Critical Reflection (20%)

• High Distinction: Generates specific, feasible and theoretically grounded recommendations that directly address identified issues; reflection demonstrates advanced insight into managerial effectiveness and ethical considerations.
• Distinction: Offers clear and actionable recommendations supported by relevant theory; reflection shows good awareness of implications for managerial practice.
• Credit: Provides generally appropriate recommendations, some of which are linked to theory; reflection is present but lacks depth or specificity.
• Pass: Suggestions are generic or only partly relevant; reflection is largely descriptive with limited theoretical justification.
• Fail: Recommendations are absent, impractical or unrelated to the analysis; reflection is missing or superficial.

Criterion 4: Research, Academic Writing and Referencing (20%)

• High Distinction: Integrates at least six high-quality, recent academic sources seamlessly; writing is clear, concise and logically structured; referencing is accurate and consistent throughout.
• Distinction: Uses a strong set of academic sources with minor gaps; writing is well structured with few errors; referencing shows minor inconsistencies only.
• Credit: Meets minimum research requirement; writing is generally clear but may include occasional repetition or minor structural issues; referencing contains some errors.
• Pass: Relies heavily on a small number of sources or mixed-quality materials; writing contains noticeable issues with clarity, cohesion or grammar; referencing is inconsistent.
• Fail: Uses inadequate or inappropriate sources; writing is unclear or poorly structured; referencing is missing or significantly flawed.

Academic Integrity

All work submitted must be your own. You must not copy assignment briefs, solutions or model answers from third-party sites or previous cohorts. Detection of contract cheating, plagiarism or unauthorised collaboration will be managed according to the university’s academic integrity policy.

One mid-level manager in a healthcare organisation described spending much of the week coordinating staff rosters, resolving interpersonal tensions and communicating shifting priorities to the team. These activities align closely with Mintzberg’s interpersonal and informational roles because the manager acts as a central point of contact who shapes how staff interpret organisational goals and constraints. When the manager uses regular one-to-one check-ins to clarify expectations and provide developmental feedback, employees report higher clarity and a stronger sense of fairness in how performance decisions are made. Empirical research on performance management shows that timely, dialogic feedback is associated with greater perceptions of justice and stronger commitment, particularly when managers invite employee voice and explain the rationale behind decisions (Aguinis et al., 2023).

In-text citation used above

Aguinis, H., Burgi-Tian, J. & Wang, S. (2023) ‘Performance management: A multidisciplinary review and future research agenda’, Journal of Management, 49(1), pp. 125–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221094853

References

1. Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. (2022) Organizational Behavior. 19th edn. Harlow: Pearson. Available at: https://www.pearson.com
2. Aguinis, H., Burgi-Tian, J. & Wang, S. (2023) ‘Performance management: A multidisciplinary review and future research agenda’, Journal of Management, 49(1), pp. 125–164. doi:10.1177/01492063221094853.
3. Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H. & Ryan, R.M. (2017) ‘Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, pp. 19–43. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108.
4. Van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S.B. (2018) ‘Leadership and organizational culture’, in Chatman, J.A. & Gino, F. (eds.) Handbook of Culture and Creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–278. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190295845.013.12.
5. Bratton, J. & Gold, J. (2022) Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. 7th edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-352-01255-1.