Assessment Task Description

Assessment Task Description
Assessment Part 1: Case Study Analysis (Report)
Weighting:
25%
Date due: Week 10
Word limit: 2000 words
Purpose: to assess the following Learning Outcomes:
a. Explain the difference between domestic and international HRM
b. Examine issues and methods faced by managers in staffing, recruiting and selecting the candidates on both
levels and challenges faced due to cultural differences
c. Methods and challenges of training and development of employees.
Students will also be assessed on their ability to work in a team.
Your task: Students must identify the IHRM issues covered by the assigned case study, research management
theories (especially those contained in the textbook), expert opinions and current management practice regarding
the identified issues, and prepare for the presentation. Students must ensure that they apply the relevant
management theories covered in this unit when analyzing and recommending actions in their report.
Report structure:
• • Title page: name of the case, members of the group, date of submission
• •
Executive Summary: key findings of the group
• •
Table of Contents: with section numbers and headings
• •
Introduction: Summarize the case and point out the important case facts
• •
Key Management Challenge: identify the symptoms and problems


issues
Case Analysis: identify and apply relevant management theories and address root causes of identified

• • Recommendations
• •
Full ‘in-text’ referencing: citing at least four academic sources
• •
Reference list: using the A.P.A. referencing style
Do not focus on a problem that has already been solved also do not focus on many problems at the same time.

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
MGT307 – International Human Resources Management
School Business
Course Name Bachelor of Business
Unit Code MGT307
Unit Title International Human Resources Management
Trimester Trimester 1, 2019
Assessment
Author
Ms. Tanmaya
Assessment Type Group
Assessment Title Report
Weight 25%
Total Marks 25

 

Section to be included in the
report
Detailed Description of the Criteria Marks
Criteria 1 Executive Summary 10
Criteria 2 Introduction: A brief outline of the background to the
organization, its parent country and host country
10
Criteria 3 Provide discussions on the differences between how the HRM
works in the Parent country and how the same organization
works in the host country.
35
Criteria 4 Provide recommendations for the future
directions/opportunities/options for the other companies
(Whether the company succeeded or failed)
Conclusion
20
Criteria 5 Provide at least 10 academic sources of information, and five
non-peer review articles
Your case study analysis must be fully referenced using the
APA style of referencing.
15
Criteria 6 Meetings and journal documentations and contribution
provided in appendix OR Matrix Schedule of Group Members
work at meetings and documented discussions of
cooperation.
10
Total 100

 

Marking
Rubric
Criteria/
Grades
High
Distinction
(HD)
[Excellent]
= or >80%
Distinction
(D) [Very
Good]
70%-79%
Credits
(C) [Good]
60%-69%
Pass (P)
[Satisfactory]
50%-59%
Fail (N)
[Unsatisfactory]
<50%
Criteria 1 Concise and
specific to the
project
Topics are
relevant and
soundly
analyzed.
Generally
relevant and
analyzed.
Some
relevance and
briefly
presented.
This is not
relevant to the
assignment
topic.
Criteria 2 Demonstrated
excellent
ability to think
critically and
sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
excellent
ability to think
critically but
did not source
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
ability to think
critically and
sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
ability to think
critically and
did not source
reference
material
appropriately
Did not
demonstrate
ability to think
critically and did
not source
reference
material
appropriately
Criteria 3 All elements
are present
and very well
integrated.
Components
present with
good cohesive
Components
present and
mostly well
integrated
Most
components
present
Proposal lacks
structure.
Criteria 4 Logic is clear
and easy to
follow with
Consistency
logical and
convincing
Mostly
consistent
logical and
convincing
Adequate
cohesion and
conviction
Argument is
confused and
disjointed

 

strong
arguments
Criteria 5 Clear styles
with excellent
source of
references.
Clear
referencing
style
Generally
good
referencing
style
Sometimes
clear
referencing
style
Lacks
consistency
with many
errors

Comments: