International and Comparative HRM

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL COURSEWORK PORTFOLIO

Module Code: 7SBP1303

Module Title: International and Comparative HRM

Session: Sem B 2021/22

 

 

International and Comparative HRM

Semester B 2021/22

Instructions

Your portfolio must include answer all four sections:

Individual essay (70% of marks)

Weekly attendance log (10% of marks)

Individual reflection (10% of marks)

Reference list (10% of marks)

Total = 100%

Information

You must answer all four sections

You must answer all questions within this template document

Each section carries a different weighting and marking criteria

You must attend the workshop in week 9 in order to complete section 3 and 4.

Please read the question and the marking criteria carefully before answering

You must achieve more than 50% on aggregate for this assessment to pass the module

In accordance with the University of Hertfordshire Policy on Academic Integrity and Misconduct you must:

Properly acknowledge the work of others, where it has contributed to each point (not paragraph) you are making in your answer.

Use quotation marks when paraphrasing from a source (include page number)

Ensure the work is entirely your own

We will be using Turnitin software to identify cases of academic misconduct and plagiarism.

Submission deadline:

Please submit online via Canvas by Friday 29th April 2022 by 23.00

MARKING CRITERIA1

Please read the marking criteria before attempting to answer the questions

PG Grading Criteria for HBS Essay (worth 80 marks – section 1 and 4)

Essay Presentation & structure

 

Intellectual curiosity (Quality of academic sources)

Use & presentation of Harvard Referencing

Content

Business Application and Integration of Data/Literature

Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection

Task details Follows essay structure & keeps to word limit 2000 words +/- 10%

Uses appropriate sources. Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List.

Uses a minimum of 15 sources

including 10 academic sources

(must include recommended

readings)

Content included

Integration and application of academic literature relevant to ICHRM topic and country-based examples

Development of quality recommendations

Total marks

5

10

25

20

20

90-100

 

Outstanding

Outstanding presentation & essay structure, with flowing paragraphs. Introduction and conclusion set/summarise the purpose and context of the essay, with clear signposting of key themes and relevant theories.

Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced (must include recommended academic sources). Outstanding alignment with brief.

No grammatical / spelling errors.

Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources.

Outstanding standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (all points are substantiated with an in-text reference unless this is personal evaluation of evidence) & full details shown in Reference list.

Reference list includes more than 15 references and 10 academic sources which include recommended readings

Outstanding ICHRM knowledge and understanding demonstrated. Evidence of appropriate reading (must include relevant theories/models and recommended readings). Covers all relevant points and issues. Outstanding insight and application of country-based examples. Outstanding integration of relevant academic sources to apply country-based examples. Very impressive breadth and depth. Outstanding level of discussion of potential recommendations. Highly developed/focused work, with thorough consideration of the recommendations that are connected to evaluation presented in the essay

80-89

Excellent

Excellent presentation & essay structure, with flowing paragraphs. Introduction and conclusion set/summarise the purpose and context of the essay, with clear signposting of key themes and relevant theories.

Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced (must include recommended academic sources). Excellent. alignment with brief

Only minor grammatical / spelling errors

Excellent selection of quality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources.

Excellent standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (points are substantiated with an in-text reference unless this is personal evaluation of evidence – only minor areas for development) & full details shown in Reference list.

Reference list includes more than 15 references and 10 academic sources which include recommended readings

Excellent ICHRM knowledge and understanding demonstrated. Evidence of appropriate reading (must include relevant theories/models and recommended readings). Covers all relevant points and issues.

.

Excellent insight and application of country-based examples. Excellent integration of relevant academic sources to apply country-based examples. Impressive breadth and depth. Excellent level of discussion of potential recommendations Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the evaluation presented in the essay.

70-79

Very Good

Very good presentation & essay structure, with flowing paragraphs. Introduction and conclusion set/summarise the purpose and context of the essay, with clear signposting of key themes and relevant theories.

Fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced (must include recommended academic sources). Very good alignment with brief. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.

Very good selection of mostly quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used.

Very good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (the majority of points are substantiated with an in-text reference unless this is personal evaluation of evidence) & full details shown in Reference list.

Reference list includes more than 10 references and 5 academic sources which include recommended readings

Very good ICHRM knowledge and understanding demonstrated. Very good level of appropriate reading (must include relevant theories/models and recommended readings). Covers most relevant points and issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations. Very good insight and application of country-based examples. Very good integration of relevant academic sources to apply country-based examples. Very impressive breadth and depth Very good level of discussion of potential recommendations. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison

60-69

Good

Good presentation & essay structure, with paragraphing. Introduction and conclusion set/summarise the purpose and context of the essay but may need to signpost more clearly the key themes and/or relevant theories to be discussed. Writing is good with some flow and spelling/grammatical errors seldom impede understanding. May be minor areas where more focus is needed (e.g., signposting of themes, relevant theories, or recommended academic sources). Aligns with brief.

 

Good selection of quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. Good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (some areas for development in terms of points being substantiated with in-text references unless it is personal evaluation of evidence) & full details shown in Reference list.

Reference list includes more than 10 references and 5 academic sources which include recommended readings

Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented. Knowledge & understanding is demonstrated.

Minor errors / omissions in content (e.g. relevant theories/models/recommended readings)

Good insight and application of country-based examples. Good integration of relevant country-based examples into work. Good use of literature with breadth and depth Good level of discussion of potential recommendations but more ideas could be addressed or developed further. May not all be fully connected to evaluation in essay.

50-59

Clear Pass

Satisfactory: essay structure. Not written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding. May be significant areas where more focus is needed (e.g., lack of signposting of key themes, relevant theories or not referencing recommended academic sources). Aligns with brief.

See CASE with feedback

Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources.

Satisfactory referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Some areas for development in terms of points being substantiated with in-text references unless it is personal evaluation of evidence

Reference list may not include 10 references (but not less than 5). May contain less than 5 academic sources and/or may have overlooked some recommended readings

See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses part of the task. Some errors / omissions in content (e.g. some relevant theories/models/recommended readings may have not be explained in full). May benefit from further research. Satisfactory insight and application of country-based examples. Limited integration of relevant country-based examples into work. Use of examples but limited in breadth or depth.

Satisfactory: basic evidence of discussion of recommendations but some points irrelevant or superficial so need further development. Not all recommendations are connected to evaluation in essay.

See CASE with feedback

40-49

Marginal Fail

Weak essay format. Limited or poor structure. Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors. Limited attempt to signpost key themes, theories or cross-reference ideas using recommended academic sources. May not fully align with brief.

Must see CASE with feedback

 

Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Many points are not substantiated with in-text references which weakens the argument.

Reference list includes less than 10 references and is mainly focused on online sources (less than 5 academic sources) and has overlooked recommended readings

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Weak: Limited content / knowledge (e.g. some relevant theories/models/recommended readings may have been missed or explanation does not demonstrate understanding). Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question.

Does not meet all the learning outcomes – may be unfocused and does not address the question.

Weak: unsatisfactory evidence of ICHRM application & insight. Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory. More integration of country-based examples. Weak: limited evidence of discussion of recommendations. More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe. Recommendations are disconnected from evaluation in essay.

Must see CASE with feedback

20 – 39

Clear Fail

Inadequate essay format with little to no signposting of key themes, theories and cross-referencing of ideas with recommended academic sources.

Inappropriate writing style

Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar. May not fully align with brief.

Must see CASE with feedback

Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. The majority of points are not substantiated with in-text references which weakens the argument.

Reference list contains less than 5 academic sources and does not include recommended readings – mainly all online sources.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge (e.g. relevant theories/models/recommended readings) Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes – significantly unfocused and does not address the question. Inadequate: Lacks evidence of country-based examples application & insight. Some examples are missing, or irrelevant to topic. Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion of recommendations. Descriptive and not linked to an evaluation in the essay.

 

Must see CASE with feedback

0 – 19

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit: poorly written work lacking structure around the question set. No signposting of key themes, theories and lack of cross-referencing of ideas with recommended academic sources.

Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar. Does not align with brief.

Must see CASE with feedback

Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system. The majority of points are not substantiated with in-text references.

Reference list is mainly online sources and recommended readings have not been incorporated.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated.

Content used irrelevant /not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.

Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate country-based examples application or insight.

 

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of discussion of recommendations. Not connected to evaluation in essay.

Must see CASE with feedback

 

Grading Criteria for Reflection and Attendance Log (worth 20 marks – section 2 & 3)

Task details

 

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

ATTENDANCE DIARY

Marks

(out of 10)

10

10

90-100

 

Outstanding

Outstanding insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Outstanding breadth and depth of examples to show application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking experience

Outstanding standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (all points are substantiated with an in-text reference unless this is personal evaluation of evidence)

Outstanding exploration of your learning each week with thorough and appropriate reflection on how this may contribute towards your future career. Specific theories/models are identified. All weeks have been written up to an outstanding level as above.

80-89

Excellent

Excellent insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Excellent breadth and depth of examples to show application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking experience

Excellent

standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (points are substantiated with an in-text reference unless this is personal evaluation of evidence – only minor areas for development)

Excellent exploration of your learning each week with thorough and appropriate reflection on how this may contribute towards your future career. Specific theories/models are identified. All weeks have been written up to an excellent level as above.

70-79

Very Good

Very good insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Very good breadth and depth of examples to show application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking experience

Very good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (the majority of points are substantiated with an in-text reference unless this is personal evaluation of evidence)

Very good exploration of your learning each week with thorough and appropriate reflection on how this may contribute towards your future career. Some theories/topics identified. All weeks have been written up to a very good level as above.

60-69

Good

Good insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Good breadth and depth of examples to show application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking experience

Good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references (some areas for development in terms of points being substantiated with in-text references unless it is personal evaluation of evidence)

Good exploration of your learning each week with

Good reflection on how this may contribute towards your future career. May be more topic led and less emphasis on specific theories/models. All weeks have been written up but there may be some weeks that lack breadth/depth.

50 – 59

Clear Pass

Satisfactory insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Limited integration of examples to show application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking experience

Satisfactory: referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Some areas for development in terms of points being substantiated with in-text references unless it is personal evaluation of evidence

See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Satisfactory exploration of your learning each week. All weeks have been written up but there is a lack of breadth/depth in the examination of how your learning may contribute towards your future career. May be more emphasis on topic than specific theories/models.

40-49

Marginal Fail

Weak: insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Work needs to show stronger application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking experience. More integration of examples.

Weak: use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Many points are not substantiated with in-text references which weakens the argument.

May not have attended group work session.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Weak exploration of your learning each week. There is a focus on providing an overview of the topic rather than specific theories/models. Less emphasis on how this learning may contribute to your future career.

20 – 39

Clear Fail

Inadequate insight and application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience. Experience. Lacks examples to show application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to analyse your cross-cultural teamworking. Some examples are missing, or irrelevant to Gibb’

Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. The majority of points are not substantiated with in-text references which weakens the argument.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

May not have attended group work session.

Inadequate exploration of your learning each week. Some weeks may not have been written up. The emphasis is on describing the lecture topic and not identifying specific theories/models. There is little reflection on how this learning may contribute to your future career.

0 – 19

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit: No evidence of application of Gibb’s reflective cycle to your cross-cultural working experience.

 

Nothing of merit: No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system. The majority of points are not substantiated with in-text references.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

May not have attended group work session.

Nothing of merit. Many weeks have not been written up and little/no exploration of learning.

SECTION 1: INDIVIDUAL ESSAY – (70% of marks)

Please only answer A1 OR A2 on the next page

DO NOT ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS IN THIS SUBSECTION

A1

 

You are the HR director for a multinational hotel chain. The company is looking to expand more internationally. Identify and critically discuss the equal opportunity (in employment) law(s) in two different counties. For each country, discuss the implications for the multicultural corporation. What recommendations do you have for HR operations in each country?

Word count: 2000 words +/- 10% (excluding references)

 

 

 

 

 

 

A2

 

 

You are the HR director for a leading global tech company. The company is looking to expand overseas into two new countries. Your task is to identify two countries of your choice and critically examine how cultural factors and cultural differences may impact on:

The effectiveness of performance appraisal systems

OR

Employee preference for pay and reward.

You must also identify recommendations for designing and implementing performance

appraisal or pay and reward (depending on your selection) in a multicultural organisation

(2000 words)

Word count: 2000 words +/- 10% (excluding references)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessor notes:

Introduction should include clear identification of key themes and signposting including relevant theories to be discussed.

Make sure all points are substantiated with in-text references, so personal evaluation is clearly distinguished.

Note we are expecting this portfolio to draw on at least 15 references, of which 10 should be academic.

Please use recommended academic readings before finding other sources – see reading list and lecture slides for guidance

Please do not use unreliable sources i.e. Wikipedia, businessballs, UK essays, Tutor 4 U)

Country-based examples should be supported by references, ideally academic.

Recommendations should be clear, specific and linked directly to an evaluation of HRM in different countries (make sure the two are connected)

Conclusion should summarise the key themes within the essay and draws an overall conclusion to the question set

A1 OR A2 ANSWER

Please select the box of the question you will be answering:
A1 A2

 

SECTION 2: WEEKLY ATTENDANCE LOG – 10% of marks

You must answer for all teaching 2weeks:

Teaching week

W/C

Topic

Please identify a minimum of one interesting point you learnt each week. You must also specify how this knowledge might contribute to your future career

Please include a minimum of 50 words per weekly log

1 7th Feb Introduction to the module and ICHRM
2 14th Feb Comparative HRM
3 21st Feb National culture and IHRM
4 28th Feb Equal opportunities
5 7th March International staffing
6 14th March Pay and rewards
7 21st March Performance management and appraisal
8 28th March Assignment 1 briefing
9 4th April Group task

 

Assessor notes

Attendance log must be completed for each week

You should identify specific theories/models you have learnt about (rather than the topic as a whole) each week

You should identify how the above learning may contribute towards your future career – with specific and detailed examples.

SECTION 3: INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION – 10% of marks

 

 

Drawing on Gibb’s (1988) Reflective Cycle model, please reflect on your experience of cross-cultural working in relation to the group task in week 9 developing ‘a cross-cultural team communication map’. Your reflection should be no more than 750 words in total (+/- 10%)

Suggested structure for this reflection:

Introduction: setting out the purpose of the reflection and signposting the themes/areas it will cover. It may also include a definition of Gibb’s (1988) model and the benefits of incorporating it in this type of task.

Description: briefly explain the task and your specific role within this.

Feelings: how did you feel about the task? What emotions did it raise – be specific?

Evaluation: was it a good or bad experience overall? Examples of what happened that lead to this evaluation of the experience (good/bad).

Analysis: What sense can you make of this experience? How can your knowledge of cross-cultural communication differences and multicultural teams (e.g., tensions/challenges/benefits) help explain this?

Conclusion: What else could have been done? Draw on your knowledge of cross-cultural communication and multicultural teams (e.g., strategies to help resolve tensions) help identify ways to do things differently in the future?

Action plan: if you were to work in a cross-cultural team again, what would you do differently. Be specific and draw on your knowledge of cross-cultural communication and teamworking (in-text referencing) to strengthen your ideas.

Your answer should be written in the first person (use me/ I) and should give clear examples from your experience working as a group in the week 9 tutorial task.

It should be no more than 750 words in total (+/- 10%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessor notes:

Module leaders will be taking a register of students who attended group work session – you will score zero automatically if you did not attend in person

Students will have 5% marks deducted from reflection if they were late for the group work tutorial (up to 10 minutes)

Students more than 10 minutes late will not be allowed to complete the group work

Group work will be during on campus tutorials only. NO online tutorials for group work.

You must draw on Gibb’s reflective cycle to structure your reflection – using all of the stages.

You should provide specific and detailed examples from your cross-cultural working experience to ‘bring to life’ the reflection using Gibb as a framework

You should consider both what worked well and what you have learnt from the process to improve the experience of cross-cultural working in the future.

Please use this textbox to write up your reflection:

 

SECTION 4: REFERENCE LIST – 10% of marks

 

 

You must include a reference list using the Harvard referencing style using the textbox below.

For further guidance and clarification please see the and clarification see the University of Hertfordshire guide to referencing in Harvard style

 

 

 

 

Assessor notes:

You must include a minimum of 15 references (10 of which should be academic sources inc. recommended readings and other credible sources).

Please do not use unreliable sources (i.e. Wikipedia, businessballs, UK essays, Tutor 4 U)

Only include sources you have referenced in this portfolio details.

Please list references in alphabetical order, as per University of Hertfordshire guide to referencing in Harvard style

 

Please write up all your references into a list using the textbox below:

 

1 The HBS PG marking criteria have been adapted to tailor specifically to the requirements of this portfolio. Note there is a separate set of marking criteria for the essay (includes reference list), and the individual reflection and attendance diary (section 2 and 3). The aim is to be explicit what the examiner will be looking for, and to ensure consistency of marking across scripts.

2 If you were unable to attend the workshop, please watch the recordings available on StudyNet.

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts

(USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  Need help | NR283 pathopysiology | Chamberlain College of Nursing