21129

MANAGING PEOPLE & ORGANISATIONS

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES & MARKING CRITERIA

(SPRING 2016)

Contact details for queries

Query

Name

Email

Tutorial readings, marking guidelines, feedback, Your tutor

appeals, remarking, assessment extensions
(one week from assessment submission date)

Tutorial allocations, exam rescheduling, other

unresolved MPO queries.

Nancy Chau

mpo@uts.edu.au

Special considerations, remarking (only after

first consulting with your tutor).

Ace Simpson

(MPO Admin
Support)
Ace.simpson@uts.edu.au

The assessment structure in this subject has been designed to develop your understanding,
critical thinking and essay writing skills in relation to the objectives set out at the beginning of
the subject outline. A summary of the major assessments in this subject is found in the table
below.

Assessment

Type

Details

Assessment 1 Summary (via

Turnitin);
(Group)
Presentation
(in Tutoiral)

500 words

Assessment 2 Essay

1500 words

(Individual)

Response to
feedback

200 words

Final exam

Questionnaire Multiple
choice

Contribution
to final grade
25%

Due date
10/09/2016
by 9pm

35%

22/10/2016
by 9pm

40%

TBA

Assessment item 1: Presentation (Group)
Completion of assignment will familiarise you with this courses performance requirements and
feedback process, preparing you for the submission of your second assignment, which carries a
higher weighting.

Task
As a group, prepare a presentation arguing a position in relation to one of the following topics
from the first half of the semester:

Managing cultures

Leadership

Managing Individuals

Managing teams and groups

Discuss the following statement:

Practices in [your chosen topic area] have changed with the advance of post-bureaucratic
management approaches.
Note: Your group will be formed at the start of the semester during your tutorial. Each group will
consist of 5 6 students who will be required to work together and allocate assignment tasks
amongst yourselves.

Group Presentation (10/25 marks 40%)
Assessment of the group presentation will mainly consist of two components content quality and
delivery style. Each student will be required to present the part of the group presentation allocated to
him/her by the group. Attendance is compulsory and if you miss your pitch without prior approval from
your tutor or the course coordinator then you will be awarded a ZERO mark for this component.
Each group presentation will last for a minimum of six minutes and a maximum of 10 minutes. You must
divide the time amongst yourselves in such a manner that each member gets at least one minute and the
entire content is presented in a coherent manner. Students are welcome to use a variety of presentation
mediums including paper-charts, powerpoint and prezi. Content must be of a high quality and presented
in a succinct and clear manner whereas delivery style will be assessed based on time management, verbal
and non-verbal (expressions and body language) skills and appropriate use of presentation medium.
Written Summary (15/25 marks 60%)
The summary of 500 words (+/- 10%) (not including your title page or reference list) will be written in
essay format and assessed on the basis of the conceptual organisation of ideas, understanding,
coherence, written expression, referencing and formatting.
The work should include the following sections:
Title page
Include word count, names and student numbers of all group members, a "TEAM LEADER" name and
email address for correspondence, name of lecturer and class time.
Introduction
Set the context by presenting your overall topic, take a position and mention selected references you
plan to use to demonstrate your overall argument.

Body
Discuss your argument within the context of the literature. Discuss new insights/practices that have
emerged and the underlying assumptions of these insights/practices. Compare and contrast the
arguments and assumptions embedded in your different source materials (i.e. managerialism vs. Critical
Management Studies or stakeholder perspectives). Approach the topic from different perspectives;
whose voices are dominant or missing, what are the implications and what are the new emerging
questions?
Conclusion
Briefly summarise your argument to draw a concluding thesis statement.
References
Present a reference list with least four references from quality sources, ensure they are formatted
according to Harvard UTS conventions and that referencing is consistent throughout the report.
Layout
Double-space your text and use 2.5-centimetre margins. The text should be in a 12-point Times New
Roman font and left-justified. Pages should be numbered, with the numbers appearing in the bottom
right-hand corner of the pages.
Submission
Written summaries should be submitted via Turnitin by 9 PM on the due date. A group leader should be
tasked with uploading the assignment. Each member of the group must sign a group assignment cover
sheet indicating the percentage of work each student has contributed to the overall assignment. Group
presentations will be made in the tutorial.

Note: Further guidance on the process and structure of writing an essay is provided with an
example on pages 9 to 12 of this guide.

Assessment item 2: (Individual)
Your second assignment will build upon your first essay and involve two parts: constructing an
essay, and responding to your tutors feedback from your first essay.
Task
Part 1: Essay
Write an academic essay of 1700 words (+/-10%) in which you further develop the arguments of
your first essay by applying them within the context of one of the topics from the second half of
the semester:

Managing Sustainably: Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

Globalisation

Managing communication

Managing knowledge, innovation and change

Discuss the following statement:

Practices of [your chosen topic area for essay one] contribute to managing [your chosen topic
area from essay two] with the advance of post-bureaucratic approaches.
You may use some of the same text and references from your first essay.

References

Select at least six sources from the tutorial readings and prescribed additional readings listed in
your Tutorial Guide. Supplement your argument with at least two references from other relevant
quality journal articles. Illustrate your arguments by cases from the lectures or relevant reports
from reputable media outlets as secondary sources. You may also draw material from the
recommended textbook by Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis (2016). Provide a complete reference list
at the end of your essay.

Part 2: Reflective response to Tutors Feedback from Assignment 1.

Your second task is to write a response of approximately 300 words (+/-10%), to the feedback
your tutor provided to your first essay. You may want to break your response down into chunks
by providing section headings based upon the marking rubric used to provide student
assignment feedback. Explain, how you will use this feedback to improve your second essay.
What have you done differently? What have you kept the same? Part two should be presented
on a new page after the reference list from your second essay.
Layout
Your essay and reflections should be printed on one side of A4 paper only. Double space your
text and use 2 to 4 centimetre wide margins. The text should be in a 12-point Times New Roman
font and left-justified. Pages should be numbered, with the numbers appearing in the bottom
right hand corner of the pages.
Note: Further guidance on the process and structure of writing an essay is provided with an
example on pages 9 to 12 of this guide.

Prescribed readings

Prescribed readings on the foundations of management and organisation studies
Clegg, S.R. & Baumeler, C. 2010, 'Essai: from iron cages to liquid modernity in organization
analysis', Organization studies, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1713-33.
Josserand, E., Teo, S. & Clegg, S.R. 2006, 'From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: the
difficulties of transition', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
54-64.
McKenna, S., Garcia-Lorenzo, L. & Bridgman, T. 2010, 'Managing, managerial control and
managerial identity in the post-bureaucratic world', Journal of Management Development,
vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 128-36.

Smith, J.H. 1998, 'The enduring legacy of Elton Mayo', Human Relations, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 22149.
Simpson, A.V., Clegg, S. & Pitsis, T. 2014, 'I used to care but things have changed: A
genealogy of compassion in organizational theory"', Journal of Management Inquiry, vol.
23, no. 4, pp. 34759.

Prescribed readings on power and post-bureaucracy

Courpasson, D. & Clegg, S.R. 2012, 'The polyarchic bureaucracy: Cooperative resistance in the workplace
and the construction of a new political structure of organizations', Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 55-79.
Josserand, E., Villesche, F. & Bardon, T. 2012, 'Being an active member of a corporate alumni network: A
critical appraisal', paper presented to the British Academy of Management, Cardiff, UK.
Knights, D. & Roberts, J. 1982, 'The power of organization or the organization of power?', Organization
Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47-63.
McKenna, S., Garcia-Lorenzo, L., & Bridgman, T. 2010, Managing, managerial control and managerial
identity in the post-bureaucratic world Journal of Management Development, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.
128 136.
Prasad, P. & Prasad, A. 2000, 'Stretching the iron cage: The constitution and implications of routine
workplace resistance', Organization Science, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 387-403.
Simpson, A.V., Clegg, S. & Freeder, D. 2013, 'Power, compassion and organization', Journal of Political
Power, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 385-404.
Zimbardo, P.G., Maslach, C. & Haney, C. 2000, 'Reflections on the Stanford prison experiment: Genesis,
transformations, consequences', in T. Blass (ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on
the Milgram paradigm, vol. Mawarh, NJ, Lawrence Erlbraum Associates, pp. 193-237.

Prescribed readings on culture

Brewis, J. 2007, 'Culture', in D. Knights & H. Willmott (eds), Introducing organizational behaviour and
management, Thomson Learning, London, pp. 344-74.
Fredrickson, B.L. 2003, 'Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations', in K.S. Cameron, J.E.
Dutton & R.E. Quinn (eds), Positive organizational scholarship, Berrett-Khoeler, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 163-75.
Igo, T. & Skitmore, M. 2006, Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering
consultancy using the competing values framework, Construction Innovation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 121
139.
Krreman, D. & Alvesson, M. 2004, 'Cages in tandem: Management control, social identity, and
identification in a knowledge-intensive firm', Organization, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 149-75.
Ogbonna, E. & Wilkinson, B. 2003, 'The false promise of organizational culture change: A case study of
middle managers in grocery retailing*', Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1151-78.

Rosen, M. 1988, 'You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses' expense', Journal of Management Studies, vol.
25, no. 5, pp. 463-80.
Schein, E.H. 1990, 'Organizational culture', American Psychologist, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 109-19.
Wray-Bliss, E. 2003, 'Quick fixes, management culture and drug culture: Excellence and ecstasy, bpr and
brown', Culture and Organization, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 161-76.

Prescribed readings on leadership

Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S. & Bidwell, A.C. 1962, 'Managerial grid', Advanced Management-Office Executive,
vol 1, no. 9, pp. 12-15.
Bolden, R. & Gosling, J. 2006, 'Leadership competencies: Time to change the tune?', Leadership, vol. 2,
no. 2, pp. 147-63.
Browning, B.W. 2007, 'Leadership in desperate times: An analysis of endurance: Shackleton's incredible
voyage through the lens of leadership theory', Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 9,
no. 2, pp. 183-98.
Cameron, K. 2011, 'Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 98, no.
1, pp. 25-35.
Dutton, J.E., Frost, P., Worline, M.C., Lilius, J.M. & Kanov, J.M. 2002, 'Leading in times of trauma', Harvard
Business Review, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 54-61.
Gabriel, Y. 1997, 'Meeting god: When organizational members come face to face with the supreme
leader', Human Relations, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 315-42.
Herman, S. 2007, 'Leadership training in a not-leadership society', Journal of Management Education,
vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 151-5.
Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. & Dukerich, J.M. 1985, 'The romance of leadership', Administrative Science
Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 78-102.
Wray-Bliss, E. 2012, 'Leadership and the deified/demonic: A cultural examination of ceo sanctification',
Business ethics: a European review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 434-49.

Prescribed readings on human resource management

Almeida, S., Fernando, M. & Sheridan, A. 2012, 'Revealing the screening: Organisational factors
influencing the recruitment of immigrant professionals', The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1950-65.
Arrowsmith, J. & Parker, J. 2013, The meaning of employee engagement for the values and
roles of the HRM function, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
vol. 24, no. 14, pp. 26922712.
Booth, A., Leigh, A. & Varganova, E. 2010, Does racial and ethnic discrimination vary across
minority groups? Evidence from a field experiment, Discussion paper Series, DP No. 4947,
Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn.
Guest, D. 2011, Human resource management and performance: still searching for some
answers, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 3-13.
Greenwood M. 2013, Ethical analyses of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Business Ethics vol. 114 no. 2, pp. 355-366.

Linley, P.A., Harrington, S. & Hill, J.R.W. 2005, 'Selection and development: A new perspective
on some old problems', Selection and Development Review, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 3-6.
Syed,J. & Pio, E. 2010, Veiled Diversity? Workplace experiences of Muslim Women in Australia,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 115-137.

Prescribed readings on managing individuals

Parashar, S., Dhar, S. & Dhar, U. 2004, 'Perception of values: A study of future professionals', Journal of
Human Values, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 143-52.
Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. 2004, Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification,
Oxford University Press, USA, New York.
Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. 2005, 'How to play to your
strengths', Harvard Business Review, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 74-80.
Roberts, L., Dutton, J., Spreitzer, G., Heaphy, E. & Quinn, R. 2005, 'Composing the reflected best-self
portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations', Academy of
Management Review, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 712.
Schwartz, S.H. 1992, 'Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries', Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 165.
Sluss, D.M & Ashforth, B.E. 2007, Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work
relationships, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no1, pp. 9-32.
Wrzeniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. & Schawartz, B. 1997, 'Jobs, careers, and callings: People's
relations to their work', Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 31, pp. 21-33.

Prescribed readings on managing teams and groups

Barker, J.R. 1993, 'Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams', Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 408-37.
Belbin, R.M. 2004, Management teams: why they succeed or fail, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Dimitroff, R.D., Schmidt, L. & Bond, T. 2005, 'Organizational behavior and disaster: A study of conflict at
NASA', Project Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 28-38.
Frey, L.R. 2004, 'The symbolic-interpretive perspective on group dynamics', Small Group Research, vol. 35,
no. 3, pp. 277-306.
Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. 2004, 'The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business
teams', American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 740-65.
Smith, D.M. & Edmondson, A.C. 2006, 'Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship conflict',
California Management Review, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 6-31.
Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A.C. 1977, 'Stages of small-group development revisited', Group &
Organization Management, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 419-27.

Prescribed readings on ethics and CSR
Cameron, K.S., Bright, D. & Caza, A. 2004, 'Exploring the relationships between organizational
virtuousness and performance', American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 766-90.

Fernando, M., Dharmage, S. & Almeida, S. 2008, 'Ethical ideologies of senior Australian managers: An
empirical study', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 145-55.
Schwartz, M. 2000, 'Why ethical codes constitute an unconscionable regression', Journal of Business
Ethics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 173-84.
Stubbs, W. & Cocklin, C. 2008, 'Conceptualizing a sustainability business model', Organization &
Environment, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 103-27.
Sisodia, R.S. 2011, 'Conscious capitalism: A better way to win', California Management Review, vol. 53,
no. 3, pp. 98-108.
Wray-Bliss, E. 2007, 'Ethics in work', in D. Knights & H. Willmott (eds), Introducing organizational
behaviour and management, Thomson Learning, pp. 506-33.

Prescribed readings on globalisation
Banerjee, S.B. 2008, 'Necrocapitalism', Organization Studies, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1541-63.
Chan, J., Pun, N. & Selden, M. 2013, 'The politics of global production: Apple, Foxconn and China's new
working class', New Technology, Work and Employment, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 100-15.
Gold, S., Hahn, R. & Seuring, S. 2013, 'Sustainable supply chain management in base of the pyramid
food projectsa path to triple bottom line approaches for multinationals?', International Business
Review, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 784-99.
Morgan, G. 2006, 'The ugly face: Organizations as instruments of domination', in, Images of organization,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 291-336.
Rego, A., Clegg, S. & Cunha, M. 2011, 'The positive power of character strengths and virtues for global
leaders', in K.S. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A. & Wilemon, D. 2004, 'Working together apart? Building a knowledge-sharing
culture for global virtual teams', Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 15-29.

Prescribed readings on communication

Barry, B. 2007, 'The cringing and the craven: Freedom of expression in, around, and beyond the
workplace', Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 263-96.
Jack, G. 2004, 'On speech, critique and protection', Ephemera, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 121-34.
Klein, N. 2000, 'The branding of learning', in, No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies, Picador, New York,
pp. 87-105.
Watson, T.J. 1995, 'Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale',
Organization Studies, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 805-21.
Whitney, D. 1998, Let's change the subject and change our organization: An appreciative inquiry approach
to organization change, Career Development International, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 314-319.

Prescribed readings on knowledge, innovation and change

Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C. 2004, 'Building ambidexterity into an organization', MIT Sloan Management
Review, vol. 45, pp. 47-55.
Brown, T. 2008, 'Design thinking', Harvard Business Review, vol. 86, no. 6, p. 84.
Cunha, J.V. & Cunha, M.P. 2001, 'Brave new (paradoxical) world: Structure and improvisation in virtual
teams', Strategic Change, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 337-47.
Harris, M. 2006, Technology, innovation and post-bureaucracy: the case of the British Library", Journal
of Organizational Change Management, vol. 19 no. 1, pp.80 - 92
Josserand, E. 2004, Cooperation within Bureaucracies: Are Communities of Practice an Answer?,
M@n@gement, vol. 7, no. 3,pp. 307-339.
Josserand, E., Teo, S. & Clegg, S. 2006, 'From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: The difficulties of
transition', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 54-64.
Wenger, E.C. & Snyder, W.M. 2000, 'Communities of practice: The organizational frontier', Harvard
Business Review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 139-46.
Weick, K.E. & Westley, F. 1999, 'Affirming an oxymoron', in S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W.R. Nord (eds),
Managing organizations: Current issues, Sage, London, pp. 190-208.

Please note that most of these articles/readings can be accessed via e-readings by going to the UTS
Library website and typing 21129 into the search-bar.

ASSESSMENT AND EXPECTATIONS

A central aim for this subject is to develop your skills in critical and analytical thinking
within the context of management and organisations. A fundamental mechanism
through which such thinking is developed and demonstrated is through writing:
particularly in the format of an extended academic essay.
GUIDANCE ON THE REQUIRED FORMAT OF THE ACADEMIC ESSAYS
An academic essay must have:
1. An explicit argument that answers a basic premise or question:
An academic essay is not merely a summary of what has already been written on a
subject. It is, instead, a presentation of your argument, supported by academic sources,
on the specific question set. You should tell the reader in your Introduction very clearly
what your answer will be and tell them how your essay is to be structured to present
your answer.
For example, if you had been asked a question on whether strong management can
prevent fraudulent business practices, your opening sentence might look something like
this: In this essay I am going to argue that fraudulent business practices happen because
of, not despite, strong management. I am going to suggest that, in part, the pressure
put upon employees by their managers can generate a culture where corners are cut and
proper checks and balances are not carried out. I conclude that stronger management,
therefore, may not be the solution to ending corporate fraud.
2. An argument that has a clear, logical structure:
Having told the reader in the Introduction explicitly what your answer to the question is,
your essay should be logically structured to develop your argument. Organise the main

10

part of your essay into three or four sections. Tell the reader in your Introduction what
these sections are, and link these sections to your overall argument. Remind the reader
at the start of each new section how the argument is progressing. For further details on
developing a critical review and writing assessments see the following links:

Critical review: http://www.elssa.uts.edu.au/resources/research/critical.html

Guide to writing assessments:

http://www.business.uts.edu.au/teaching/guide/guide.pdf

3. Evidence of substantial and relevant reading:

To pass Assessment 1 your essay must provide at least 6 references and for essay 2 you
must provide at least 8, making extensive use of the:

the readings/articles listed in the tutorial guidelines and readings

other pertinent references given to you in lectures

relevant ideas from the recommended text book.

4. A Conclusion:
All work needs to have a conclusion that summarises the arguments put forward in your
essay and how these arguments have answered the question(s) set. Have conviction in
your arguments. Avoid conclusions that end with it depends or this needs more
research.
5. References:
An academic essay must be supported by many references to published academic work.
For this subject your main references must be the tutorial readings and additional
readings listed in the tutorial guide. Be sure to acknowledge fully any references or
quotes you have used using the Harvard UTS reference style: e.g. (Roberts, 1984). Further
information on the Harvard UTS reference style is found in the Faculty of Business Guide
to Writing Assignments available online:
http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/help/referencing/harvard-uts-referencing-guide. Your essay
must also have a Reference list, which is an alphabetical list of the full publication details
of all the items you have explicitly referenced in your work, referenced according to
Harvard UTS conventions (i.e. do not use bullet points for your reference list and ensure
that you use a hanging indent with the first line flush left with the margin and
subsequent lines indented the same width as a paragraph indent).

Examples of essay introductions/paragraphs
The following sample essay introductory paragraphs were written by Professor Edward Wray
Bliss for MPO, and are provided ONLY to illustrate how to write your introduction. These
paragraphs are NOT based on the essay questions.

11

Example 1:
In this essay, I am going to argue that work can certainly be a source of satisfaction and joy for
individuals. Indeed, as I demonstrate in Section One, by drawing on Rosen (1988), Clegg et al
(2008) and others, managers of modern corporations are explicitly encouraged to design the
workplace and motivate employees so that these employees find satisfaction and enjoyment at
work. However, work is also a source of dissatisfaction and suffering too and I draw upon Jackall
(1988), Knights and Roberts (1982), and Morgan (2006) in Section Two to show the anxiety,
subordination and domination that may also describe the experience of work for managerial and
non-managerial employees alike. Rather than leave the question here, in Section Three I attempt
to explore, conceptually, why work produces such experiences and emotions for individuals.
Drawing upon Jackson and Carter (2000) and ODoherty (2006), I consider the strong link
between work and personal identity. Summarising my overall arguments in the Conclusion I
illustrate, with the example of Ackroyd and Crowdy (1990), just how complex the relationship
between identity, work, and an individuals striving for satisfaction and personal meaning can be.


Example 2:
In this essay, I am going to argue that it is important to study management and organisation
critically for two key reasons. First, it is important to do so because the scope and reach of
management and organisation is such that it affects all aspects of our social, economic and
cultural life. Second, because the controls that exist at present in large commercial organisations
may not be sufficient to prevent negative effects occurring in each of these contexts. In Section
One I shall demonstrate the first point with reference both to the role of management and
organisation in the current global economic crisis and also through discussing the writings of
Morgan (2006) and Klein (2001), explore the effects and outcomes of corporate power in
different spheres. In Section Two, I shall use Milgrams (1974) experiments on obedience and
authority and Jackalls (1988) study of corporate management, to argue that there are processes
at work in large organisations that can inhibit employees, and even senior managers, from
reflecting upon and being responsible for their organisations behaviour. These two points, I
suggest, make it imperative that we look critically at management and organisation. In the final
section of this essay, I shall consider just what looking critically means. I will argue, in
opposition to Parker (2002), that being critical in this context is not the same as being against
management, but is instead a commitment to better organisation and better management, a
commitment to an idea of organisation where its powerful potential, as envisaged by Knights
and Roberts (1982), is realised.

Guidelines for submitting assessments using Turnitin

Your essays must be submitted electronically using the Turnitin program on UTSOnline
(under the assignment tab on the MPO page) by 9pm on the due date. Essays submitted
late will lose an automatic 10 marks per day.

12

Turnitin will also produce a plagiarism report that will be available to your tutor when
they mark your work. The report will indicate any passages in your essay that are not
original. You are welcome to submit earlier versions of your essay to Turnitin to help you
to modify your essay. The second time you submit your essay to the system, however, it
will be at least 24 hours before Turinitin will give you your report.
As a guide, if your overall Turnitin score is over 25%, please ensure that you revise your
essay. If you do not revise, you could face severe penalties and may be referred to the
Dean of Teaching and Learning.
You must not submit anybody elses essays except your own to Turnitin for any reason.
Also, please do not, under any circumstances, think that you can present somebody
elses unreferenced writing in your essay as your own whether this is from previous
students essays, material you have found on the web, or elsewhere. The penalties for
plagiarism are extremely severe and all cases will be referred to the Dean of Teaching
and Learning.

GRADING ASSESSMENT
Your assignments will be graded according to the criterion indicated in the marking rubrics on
pages 15-18 below. When assessing your essays, each of the criteria considered - along with your
understanding of the subject, lectures and readings, and your ability for critical, questioning
thought.
In addition to the above instructions and guidelines, your tutors will talk you through the process
of assessment and will provide feedback on your two assessment submissions.

Grade categories
High Distinction

85 per cent and above

Distinction

75 per cent to 84 per cent

Credit

65 per cent to 74 per cent

Pass

50 per cent to 64 per cent

Fail (Z)

Less than 50 per cent

Please see the UTS Guide to Writing Assignments for full details on these grade categories. All
forms of assessment must be attempted and an overall mark of 50% or more must be achieved
to pass this course.

EXTENSIONS AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS

13

Essays submitted after the due time/date will incur late penalties as listed below. Late
submissions will not incur the late penalties listed, only if the tutor or Subject Coordinator has
granted a formal extension of time. This extension should be approved BEFORE the submission
deadline where possible and will only be approved in exceptional circumstances (normally on
grounds of ill health or misadventure). Work submitted more than 5 days after the stated
submission date will not be accepted for assessment unless the Subject Coordinator, on receipt
of a Special Consideration form, has granted a formal extension of time.

Late Penalties
Depending on the circumstances, the Subject Coordinator may apply the following penalties:

Up to 1 day late (after the specified deadline) 10% late reduction

Up to 2 days late: 20% late reduction

Up to 3 days late: 30% late reduction

Up to 4 days late: 40% late reduction

Up to 5 days late: 50% late reduction

Over 5 days late: NOT ACCEPTED

The 10% per day penalty is applied to the mark that would have been received if the submission
had been on time. Any work submitted after 5 days would need a Special Consideration
document to be accepted for assessment. Students cannot expect to receive verbal or written
feedback for late work.

Applying for extensions
If you are unable to submit your assignment on time due to illness or misadventure, and require
an extension of less than one week, you should submit your supporting documentation and
request an extension by emailing your tutor well before the hand-in deadline of the essay. If you
require more than a one-week extension, please submit an application for Special
Consideration with relevant supporting documentation attached, prior to the due date of the
assessment.
The extension application form is available through the Student Administration Offices or may be
downloaded at: http://www.sau.uts.edu.au/forms/index.html

REMARKING
To maintain consistency between the tutorials, the coordinators moderate the marks prior to
releasing the marked scripts back to the students. However, if you have concerns regarding your
marked assessment, please email your tutor for an appointment to discuss your concerns.
Before meeting with your tutor, you must email your tutor a detailed request explaining
precisely which criteria of the grading sheet and elements of feedback you disagree with or have

14

questions on. Your tutors will not be able to discuss your concerns unless such a document has
been submitted to them.
If you are unable to come to an agreement about your final assessment mark with your tutor,
then you may request an appointment with the co-coordinator, Ace Simpson, to assess your
mark. Please be aware that remarking your assessment may result in, 1) retaining the same
mark, 2) increasing the mark or 3) reducing the mark.

15

21129 MANAGING PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS

ASSIGNMENT 1 MARKING RUBRIC

Performance
Area/
Weighting
Argument
9%
2.25 Marks
Organisation &
Structure
9%
2.25 Marks

Critique
9%
2.25 Marks

Understanding
& Content
9%
2.25 Marks

Academic
English
9%
2.25 Marks

Unsatisfactory

Limited Proficiency

Proficient

Highly Proficient

The topic, main argument & ideas are

not clear.

There is one argument. Main ideas are

somewhat clear but are not well
developed or supported.

There is one generally well-focused

argument. Main ideas are somewhat
clear & developed with the support of
detailed information.
Essay structure is used. Introduction
states the main argument & provides an
overview of the paper. The body is
generally on topic. A conclusion is
included. Organisation supports
argument & purpose; sequence of
ideas could be improved.

There is one clear, well-focused

argument. Main ideas are mostly clear
& developed with the support of
detailed information.
Essay structure is mostly used.
Introduction states the main argument
& provides an overview of the essay
including the conclusion. Information in
the body is mostly relevant & logically
considers different perspectives with
effective transitions. The conclusion
synthesizes the different perspectives
to draw a final conclusion.

There is one clear, well-focused

argument. Main ideas are clear & are
developed with well-supported, detailed
& accurate information.
Essay structure used. Introduction
states the main argument & provides an
overview of the essay including the
conclusion. The information in the body
is relevant & logically considers
different perspectives with effective
transitions. The conclusion synthesizes
the different perspectives to draw a final
conclusion.

Poorly organized OR demonstrates

serious problems with progression of
ideas. There is no clear introduction,
structure, or conclusion. Report
structure may have been used.

Essay structure is used. Introduction

states the main topic. A conclusion is
included. Some signs of logical
organization. May have abrupt or
illogical shifts & ineffective flow of
ideas.

Insufficient reasoning & simplistic

analysis of complex issues, possibly
assumes managerialist conclusions,
lack of counterfactual thinking.

Some connections between main ideas,

limited clarity & complexity of thought,
possibly assumes managerialist
conclusions, lack of counter factual
thinking.

Adequately demonstrates reasonable

relationships among ideas,
demonstrates some counter factual
thinking.

Generally evaluates information

gathered, questions taken-for-granted
(especially managerialist) assumptions,
demonstrates relationships amongst
ideas, considers various (stakeholder)
perspectives.

Skillfully evaluates information

gathered, questions taken-for-granted
(especially managerialist) assumptions,
demonstrates relationships amongst
ideas, considers various (stakeholder)
perspectives

Unsatisfactory understanding &

engagement with course materials.
Content unclear; lapses in coherence
OR has no relation to writing task;
offers simplistic, undeveloped support
for ideas. Poor use of primary &
secondary sources.

Poor understanding & engagement with

course materials. Use of course content
is somewhat vague OR only loosely
related to the writing task; at times may
be off topic OR too broad with limited
support. Poor use of primary &
secondary sources.

Generally sound understanding &

engagement with course materials. Use
of course content is accurate, focused,
& consistent; exhibits control in
development of ideas; unified with a
fresh insight. Excellent use of primary
& secondary sources.

Excellent understanding & engagement

with course materials. Use of course
content is accurate, focused, &
consistent; exhibits control in
development of ideas; unified with a
fresh insight. Excellent use of primary
& secondary sources.

Sentences sound awkward, are

distractingly repetitive, or are difficult
to understand. Paragraphs are poorly
structured & hence are often too short
or too long. Numerous errors in
grammar, &/or spelling that interfere
with understanding.

Sentences are generally well

constructed, but have a similar
structure &/or length. Paragraphs are
generally well structured. The author
makes several errors in grammar,
syntax, mechanics, &/or spelling that
interfere with understanding.

Satisfactory understanding &

engagement with course materials. Use
of course content is mostly accurate &
fairly clear; demonstrates solid but less
accurate reasoning; contains some
appropriate details and/or examples.
Good use of primary & secondary
sources.
Sentences are generally well
constructed & have varied structure &
length. Paragraphs are generally well
structured. The author makes a few
errors in grammar, syntax, mechanics,
&/or spelling, but they do not interfere
with understanding.

Sentences are mostly well constructed

& have varied structure & length.
Paragraphs are well structured with
topic, supporting & concluding
sentences. The author makes no errors
in grammar, mechanics, &/or spelling.

All sentences are well constructed &

have varied structure & length.
Paragraphs are well structured with
topic, supporting & concluding
sentences. The author makes no errors
in grammar, mechanics, &/or spelling.

Average Proficiency

16

References
9%
2.25 Marks

Formatting

Essay is not referenced according to

Harvard UTS conventions, possibly
footnotes are used instead.

Essay is mostly referenced according to

Harvard UTS conventions: (i.e.) many
mistakes with in-text citations.
Reference list is incomplete/improperly
formatted. Possibly some references
missing from list.

Essay is generally referenced

according to Harvard UTS conventions:
(i.e.) several mistakes with in-text
citations indicating confusion regarding
providing of page numbers, citing of
secondary sources, when to use (and
or &) etc. Reference list is complete,
properly formatted & presented
alphabetically with a handing indent.

Essay looks untidy & does not follow

formatting guidelines.

Essay looks fairly neat, but violates

many assignment formatting guidelines.

Essay looks neat, but violates a few of

the assignment formatting guidelines.

Essay looks untidy & does not follow

formatting guidelines.

Essay looks fairly neat, but violates

many assignment formatting guidelines.

Essay looks neat, but violates a few of

the assignment formatting guidelines.

7%
1.75 Marks

Presentation
40%
10 Marks

Essay is mostly referenced according to

Harvard UTS conventions: (i.e.) In-text
citations are placed in parentheses
after the sentence or part thereof that
they support; page numbers are only
provided for direct quotes; long quotes
(30 words) are presented as a separate
indented paragraph. Reference list is
complete, properly formatted &
presented alphabetically with a hanging
indent.
Essay is neat, professional & mostly
respects the assessment formatting
guidelines: within the word limit, printed
on single sided A4 paper, has essay
question reproduced at top of first page,
left aligned text, 12 point font, double
spacing, 4 cm margins, numbered
pages.
Essay is neat, professional & mostly
respects the assessment formatting
guidelines: within the word limit, printed
on single sided A4 paper, has essay
question reproduced at top of first page,
left aligned text, 12 point font, double
spacing, 4 cm margins, numbered
pages.

Essay is referenced according to

Harvard UTS conventions: (i.e.) In-text
citations are placed in parentheses
after the sentence or part thereof that
they support; page numbers are only
provided for direct quotes; long quotes
(30 words) are presented as a separate
indented paragraph. Reference list is
complete, properly formatted &
presented alphabetically with a hanging
indent.
Essay is neat, professional & strictly
respects the assessment formatting
guidelines: within the word limit, printed
on single sided A4 paper, has essay
question reproduced at top of first page,
left aligned text, 12 point font, double
spacing, 2 to 4 cm margins, numbered
pages.

Total: 100% (Grade out of 25)

17

21129 MANAGING PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS

ASSIGNMENT 2 MARKING RUBRIC
Performance
Area/
Weighting
Argument
14%
4.9 Marks
Organisation
& Structure
14%
4.9 Marks

Critique
14%
4.9 Marks

Understandi
ng & Content
14%
4.9 Marks

Academic
English
14%
4.9 Marks

Unsatisfactory

Limited Proficiency

Average Proficiency

Proficient

Highly Proficient

The topic, main argument &

ideas are not clear, or minimal
connection to ideas in essay
1, or over reliance on material
from essay 1.
Poorly organized OR
demonstrates serious
problems with progression of
ideas. There is no clear
introduction, structure, or
conclusion. Report structure
may have been used.

There is one argument. Main ideas

are somewhat clear & developed
from essay 1 but are not well
developed or supported.

There is one generally well-focused

argument. Main ideas are somewhat
clear & developed with the support of
detailed information.

There is one clear, well-focused

argument. Main ideas are mostly
clear & developed with the support
of detailed information.

There is one clear, well-focused argument

developed & built upon from essay 1. Main
ideas are clearly developed with wellsupported, detailed & accurate information.

Essay structure is used. Introduction

states the main topic. A conclusion is
included. Some signs of logical
organisation. May have abrupt or
illogical shifts & ineffective flow of
ideas.

Essay structure is generally used.

Introduction states the main argument
& provides an overview of the paper.
The body is generally on topic. A
conclusion is included. Organisation
supports argument & purpose;
sequence of ideas could be improved.

Essay structure used. Introduction states

the main argument & provides an overview
of the essay including the conclusion. The
information in the body is relevant &
logically considers different perspectives
with effective transitions. The conclusion
synthesizes the different perspectives to
draw a final conclusion.

Insufficient reasoning &

simplistic analysis of complex
issues, possibly assumes
managerialist conclusions,
lack of counterfactual thinking.

Some connections between main

ideas, limited clarity & complexity of
thought, possibly assumes
managerialist conclusions, lack of
counter factual thinking.

Generally demonstrates reasonable

relationships among ideas,
demonstrates some counter factual
thinking.

Unsatisfactory understanding
& engagement with course
materials. Content unclear;
lapses in coherence OR has
no relation to writing task;
offers simplistic, undeveloped
support for ideas. Poor use of
primary & secondary sources.

Poor understanding & engagement

with course materials. Use of course
content is somewhat vague OR only
loosely related to the writing task; at
times may be off topic OR too broad
with limited support. Poor use of
primary & secondary sources.

Good general understanding &

engagement with course materials. Use
of course content is mostly accurate &
fairly clear; demonstrates solid but less
accurate reasoning; contains some
appropriate details and/or examples.
Good use of primary & secondary
sources.

Essay structure is mostly used.

Introduction states the main
argument & provides an overview
of the essay including the
conclusion. The information in the
body is mostly relevant & logically
considers different perspectives
with effective transitions. The
conclusion synthesizes the
different perspectives to draw a
Adequately
evaluates information
final conclusion.
gathered, questions taken-forgranted (especially managerialist)
assumptions, demonstrates
relationships amongst ideas,
considers various (stakeholder)
perspectives.
Mostly sound understanding &
engagement with course materials.
Use of course content is accurate,
focused, & consistent; exhibits
control in development of ideas;
unified with a fresh insight.
Excellent use of primary &
secondary sources.

Sentences sound awkward,

are distractingly repetitive, or
are difficult to understand.
Paragraphs are poorly
structured & hence are often
too short or too long.
Numerous errors in grammar,
&/or spelling that interfere with
understanding.

Sentences are generally well

constructed, but have a similar
structure &/or length. Paragraphs
are generally well structured. The
author makes several errors in
grammar, syntax, mechanics, &/or
spelling that interfere with
understanding.

Sentences are generally well

constructed & have varied structure &
length. Paragraphs are generally well
structured. The author makes a few
errors in grammar, syntax, mechanics,
&/or spelling, but they do not interfere
with understanding.

Sentences are mostly well

constructed & have varied
structure & length. Paragraphs are
well structured with topic,
supporting & concluding
sentences. The author makes no
errors in grammar, mechanics,
&/or spelling.

All sentences are well constructed & have

varied structure & length. Paragraphs are
well structured with topic, supporting &
concluding sentences. The author makes no
errors in grammar, mechanics, &/or spelling.

Skillfully evaluates information gathered,

questions taken-for-granted (especially
managerialist) assumptions, demonstrates
relationships amongst ideas, considers
various (stakeholder) perspectives
Excellent understanding & engagement with
course materials. Use of course content is
accurate, focused, & consistent; exhibits
control in development of ideas; unified with
a fresh insight. Excellent use of primary &
secondary sources.

18

References
14%
4.9 Marks

Formatting &
presentation

Essay is not referenced

according to Harvard UTS
conventions, possibly
footnotes are used instead.

Essay is mostly referenced according

to Harvard UTS conventions: (i.e.)
many mistakes with in-text citations.
Reference list is
incomplete/improperly formatted.
Possibly some references missing
from list.

Essay is generally referenced

according to Harvard UTS conventions:
(i.e.) several mistakes with in-text
citations indicating confusion regarding
providing of page numbers, citing of
secondary sources, when to use (and
or &) etc. Reference list is complete,
properly formatted & presented
alphabetically with a handing indent.

Essay looks untidy & does not

follow formatting guidelines.

Essay looks fairly neat, but violates

many assignment formatting
guidelines.

Essay looks neat, but violates a few of

the assignment formatting guidelines.

Minimal reflection &

application of feedback,
st
repeated mistakes from 1
essay.

Overall good reflection & application

of feedback, some mistakes repeated
st
from 1 essay.

Good reflection & application of

feedback, correction of many mistakes
from 1st essay.

8%
2.8 Marks

Reflections
on Essay 1
feedback

Essay is mostly referenced

according to Harvard UTS
conventions: (i.e.) In-text citations
are placed in parentheses after the
sentence or part thereof that they
support; page numbers are only
provided for direct quotes; long
quotes (30 words) are presented
as a separate indented paragraph.
Reference list is complete, properly
formatted & presented
alphabetically with a hanging
indent.
Essay is neat, professional &
mostly respects the assessment
formatting guidelines: within the
word limit, printed on single sided
A4 paper, has essay question
reproduced at top of first page, left
aligned text, 12 point font, double
spacing, 4 cm margins, numbered
pages.
Excellent reflection, application of
feedback & correction of most
mistakes from 1st essay.

Essay is referenced according to Harvard

UTS conventions: (i.e.) In-text citations are
placed in parentheses after the sentence or
part thereof that they support; page
numbers are only provided for direct quotes;
long quotes (30 words) are presented as a
separate indented paragraph. Reference list
is complete, properly formatted & presented
alphabetically with a hanging indent.

Essay is neat & professional & strictly

respects the assessment formatting
guidelines: within the word limit, printed on
single sided A4 paper, has essay question
reproduced at top of first page, left aligned
text, 12 point font, double spacing, 2 to 4 cm
margins, numbered pages.
Excellent reflection & application of
st
feedback, no mistakes repeated from 1
essay.

8%
2.8 Marks
Total: 100% (Grade out of 35)

19

ASSIGNMENT 1 GROUP COVER SHEET

21129 Managing People and Organisations
The groups name: _______________________________________________
Tutors name: _______________________________________________
Class date and time: ______________________________________________
Please have each member of the team read, complete and sign this form. The team must decide if each
person contributed fully to the assignment. This includes: attending meetings, providing information as
requested, completing tasks as expected, contributing equally to the projects outcomes, and so on.
For example: Lets say John is a member of the group and he did all the tasks required, contributed
equally and fairly, then he would be allocated 100% of the marks. If all group members also contributed
equally, then each person is allocated 100% of the final mark. However, lets say John hardly turned up,
rarely responded to the group, and tried to free ride on the groups efforts he would be awarded anywhere
between 0% to 99% of the final mark depending on how much effort he contributed. The less effort the
lower the percentage of marks allocated to John. If the rest of the group worked hard they would all
receive 100% of the mark.
Team member name and Student ID

Role: What did this person

do? (sections, roles etc.)

% of final
mark

Students Signature

Please note that adherence to the UTS policy on plagiarism and truth in writing is mandatory. By placing
your name on this sheet you acknowledge that you have read and understood this policy and the penalties
involved with plagiarism (which include expulsion from the course or from the degree and UTS depending
on severity of plagiarism).

20