This Solution contains:
- A 32-Page PPT presentation on the ethical dilemma of an international leader – Elon Musk.
- The assignment reflection of 600 words using the GIBBS model of reflection.
- The preparation notes of the PPT: can be used to design a similar presentation for a different leader in any industry.
Assignment Brief Mode E and R Regulations
|International Leadership Group presentation and self-reflection
|10 of 20 credits
18:00 (UK Time)
Time and Place:
|Submission through Turnitin ONLY
This assignment is a group assignment. This assignment requires you to:
Develop a video presentation to demonstrate your achievement of the learning outcomes listed below. This assignment is designed to assess learning outcomes:
- Understand leadership practice in an organisation
- Understand leadership styles
- Understand the impact of leadership within organisations
Group presentation [20 minutes]
For your presentation, you are required to present as follows: Your group should comprise no more than five students in total. Prepare a recorded video PowerPoint presentation showing your face and the slides which will be uploaded onto YouTube. The YouTube link should be included in the word document containing the individual self-reflection aspect of this assessment as detailed below.
The group must focus on a current ethical dilemma in the real-world drawing from any context of an international leader in automobile manufacturing company, which has presence in two, or more continents chosen by your group. Discuss and critically analyse the leadership style(s) of the leader. The ethical dilemma such a leader faced, how she/he managed such a dilemma and the impact on the organisation. Provide recommendations as to how the standards of leadership and management can be improved in the event of a similar dilemma emerging in the future.
Individual reflection [600 words]
As an integral part of the assessment, you are required to submit a 600-word self-reflection of the key learning that you gleaned from your presentation and how it will influence your approach as a leader and your impact on the organisation that you work with in the future. The individual reflection should be submitted with the YouTube link of the group presentation included at the top of the document.
Use appropriate literature to support your reflection.
|1 – 19%
|20 – 39%
|40 – 49%
|50 – 59%
|60 – 69%
|70 – 79%
|80 – 100%
|Describe situation, events and actions – “what?”
(Knowledge of leadership theories)
|Extremely poor with many errors. No understanding of content or issues. No evidence of description of events.
|Poor. Number of errors. Virtually no understanding of content or issues. Almost no evidence of description of events.
|Satisfactory level of knowledge. Some attempt at logic but with errors. Some evidence of description of events.
|Good standard as attempted logic and reasonably error free. Good understanding of content and issues. Evidence of description of events.
|Very good and reasonably error free. Good understanding of content and issues. Good evidence of description of events.
|Excellent and almost error free. In-depth understanding of content and issues. In-depth evidence of description of events and actions.
|Exceptional and error free. Creative and thorough in-depth understanding. Thorough in-depth evidence of description of events and actions.
|Evaluate and reflect on own conclusions – “so what?”
(Evaluation of leadership theories)
|No evaluation or reflection, and does not refer to any conclusions.
|Virtually no evaluation or reflection, and hardly refers to any conclusions.
|Fair level of evaluation and reflection, but rarely illustrates conclusions based on that evaluation.
|Good level of evaluation and reflection. Perhaps illustrates a single conclusion based on that evaluation.
|Very good level of evaluation and reflection. Perhaps, a few conclusions based on that evaluation.
|Advanced level of evaluation and reflection. Some logically justified conclusions based on that evaluation.
|Exceptional level of evaluation and reflection. Logically derived, fully justified incisive conclusions based on that evaluation.
|Illustrate application of learning in appropriate situation – “now what?”
(Application of leadership principles)
|No attempt to apply learning and no situation offered.
|Makes almost no attempt to apply learning and virtually no situation offered.
|Fair attempt at application of learning within possible, though underdeveloped, workable situation.
|Good attempt at application of learning within potentially workable situation.
|Very good application of learning within mostly workable situations.
|Excellent application of learning within realistic, implementable situations.
|Exceptional application of learning within highly realistic, implementable situations.
|Critically engage with academic underpinning and feedback
(Criticality of leadership)
|Lacks any critical engagement with ideas, concepts or feedback. No appreciation of competing perspectives.
|Lacks critical engagement with ideas, concepts or feedback. Almost no appreciation of competing perspectives.
|Fair level of critical engagement with feedback and analysis of standard concepts but only a little appreciation of the competing perspectives.
|Good critical engagement with feedback and analysis of standard concepts with some appreciation of some of the competing perspectives.
|Very good critical engagement with feedback and analysis of more standard concepts. Very good appreciation of competing perspectives
|Excellent critical engagement with feedback and analysis of complex concepts. Excellent appreciation of competing perspectives.
|Exceptional critical engagement with feedback and analysis of complex ideas. Outstanding appreciation of relevant competing perspectives.
|Extremely very poor flow and there are very many typos. Extremely very limited academic referencing and citation, which do not conform to the APA or CU Harvard style.
|Very poor flow and there are very many typos. There are very limited references, inaccuracies in the referencing and citation style using the APA or CU Harvard system
|Fair flow and several typos. Some inaccuracies in the referencing and citation style using the APA or CU Harvard system.
|Fairly good flow and fairly limited typos. Largely accurate referencing and citation style using the APA or CU Harvard system.
|Good flow and limited typos. Accurate referencing and citation style using the APA or CU Harvard system.
|Very good flow and no typos. Very accurate referencing and citation style using the APA or CU Harvard system
|Excellent flow, no typos, Flawless referencing and citation style using the APA or CU Harvard system
Word Count/ requirements
The requirements for this portfolio are:
- Group presentation – 20 minutes
- Personal reflection – 600 words.
There will be a penalty of a deduction of up to 4% of the total mark (after internal moderation) for elements of the portfolio exceeding the word limit by 10% or more.
The word limit includes quotations and citations but excludes the references list.
There will be a penalty of a deduction of 4% of the total mark (after internal moderation) for presentations exceeding the time limit by 5 minutes or more.
How to submit your assessment
The assessment must be submitted by 18:00 on a date to be announced. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.
- Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
- Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero. The Faculty accepts Microsoft Office and PDF documents unless otherwise advised by the module leader.
- All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.
- The University wants you to do your best. However we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to two weeks, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.
You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx
- Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
- Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.
GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
As part of your study, you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to cite and reference the works of others correctly. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw. You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz available.
Self-plagiarism or reuse of work previously submitted.
You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this and any other university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, i.e. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is unacceptable because you cannot gain credit for the same work twice.
The University VLE includes a plagiarism detection system, and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. If you are a business student and joined Coventry University in September 2020 or later please use APA 7th edition referencing, if you joined prior to this date you may use APA or the existing Harvard Reference Style (Coventry version) that you are familiar with. Law students should use OSCOLA. Please be consistent in the referencing style that you use and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. If you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing, your Progress Coach or a member of the course team.
Return of Marked Work
You can expect to have marked work returned to you on the xx/xx/xx which is ten working days after submission. If for any reason, there is a delay you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online/in-class/face to face. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will, therefore, be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review.
I have made a similar PPT for a different leader – Shell PLC – HERE.