RECENT ASSIGNMENT

Assessment item 2
Essay
Value: 40%
Due date: 29-Dec-2014
Return date: 19-Jan-2015
Length: 2000 words
Submission method options
Alternative submission method
Task
Why is resistance to change frequently demonised as a problem that must be managed” What are the ethical implications of this and how else can resistance be understood”
You may use examples from your own organisation to illustrate your essay.
1. Drawing on your subject material and wider reading from the academic literature, identify and examine why change is resisted, and why resistance is problematical as something to be managed.
2. From a critical perspective, examine the relationship between power and resistance in the
context of organisational change.
3. Analyse the ethics of the managerial and of resistant positions.
4. Assess the implications of the managerial and of resistant positions for achieving an effective change management programme.
5. Draw conclusions that summarise your work and address the essay question.
You must follow an essay structure that is at a minimum an introduction; a main body that outlines the argument, analyses the material you have researched and assesses this according to the guidelines above, and a conclusion. Your writing style must follow professional literacy: Citations and a final reference list that follows the APA 6 guidelines accurately; the quality of writing and presentation: use of topic and linking sentences, and of connected paragraphs; accurate mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation etc.); use respectful language to discuss all people; avoid emotive language; employ inclusive, non-sexist language; not opinionated, i.e. support observations with evidence. A minimum
of twelve appropriate citations/references should be used.

Rationale
LO 4 Identify, analyse and critically evaluate resistance to organisational change from a range of positions.
LO 5 Analyse and assess the ethical nature of organisational change.
LO 6 Assess an organisational change management programme and propose, justify and evaluate an alternative to this.

Marking criteria

Weight Fail (F) Pass (P) Credit (C) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD)
0% to 49% 50% to 64% 65% to 74% 75% to 84% 85% to 100%
EXPRESSION 5 Spelling, Syntax, Grammar & Flow is below an acceptable University level. Substandard use of language, syntax and mechanics. Remediation required Acceptable use of language, syntax and mechanics; revisions needed. Quotations used frequently Direct quotations used sparingly. Skilful use of language, syntax and mechanics; evidence of proofing Paraphrased key comments and used direct quotations very sparingly Competent use of language, syntax and mechanics; a proofed submission Superior skill demonstrated. Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of direct quotations. Expertly presented in accordance with a high standard of scholarship. Excellence demonstrated and use of language, syntax and mechanics; very clean copy
CRITERIA 15 Little application of theories and models to set task
Critical analysis below standard or not evident Application of some theories and models to set task
Critical analysis somewhat demonstrated Application of theories and models relevant to set task
Critical analysis demonstrated generally Competent application of relevant theories and models
Considerable demonstration of critical analysis Scholarly application of relevant theories and models
Scholarly demonstration of critical analysis
ARGUMENT – EVIDENCE, CLARITY & EXPRESSION 15 Argument, if evidenced, not developed or supported
Substandard, or no merit to conclusion
Case method not consulted Argument is not well developed and supported
Conclusion evident
Case method appears to have been consulted Logically developed argument supported by evidence
Effective conclusion
Use of case method apparent Logically developed argument clearly supported by evidence
Comprehensive conclusion
Skilful use of case method Logical argument developed in a scholarly fashion supported by evidence
Conclusion draws argument together in an influential and scholarly manner
Competent use of case method
RELEVANCE & DEPTH 20 Insufficient or unacceptable ranges of sources consulted
Few or no key issues identified Limited use of sources of data
Some key issues identified Used a wide range of sources, most of which were relevant
Most key issues identified Scholarly use of a wide range of sources of data
An acceptable number of key issues identified Highly proficient and evidence of rigour use of a wide range of relevant secondary sources
All key issues expertly canvassed
PRESENTATION 5 Referencing is either insufficient or contains significant inaccuracies
Quotations over-used and/or used when irrelevant
Presentation inadequate with little regard for standards of scholarship Some inaccuracies in use of correct referencing style
Presentation expertly set out with some evidence of scholarship Reasonable skill in use of correct referencing style
Presentation expertly set out with a notable standard of scholarship Skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style
Presentation expertly set out with an acceptable standard of scholarship Superior skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style
Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of direct quotations
Report expertly presented in accordance with a high standard of scholarship