Ethical Business | Online Assignment Help
Read Case Study 1: Leading an Ethical Business: Dilmah Tea Waddell, D et al (2017) Organisational Change: Development & Transformation, Cengage Learning, pp. 450-451. Prepare a case study analysis report on this case: What are the key issues that this case raises for managing organisational change? Does your team consider that this firm’s focus on ethics and corporate social responsibility is not feasible or appropriate for businesses operating in other industries such as financial services, manufacturing, transport, media. Why or why not? Murdoch University 19 Can your team recommend ways that other businesses could adopt some of the principles and practices of the case study firm? Assignment 2: Marking rubric for the Team case study report. Mark High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Criteria 1: Depth & breadth of research. /10 Excellent depth and breadth of research. Location of broad range of data and views on issues raised by the case. Very good depth and breadth of research, a range of relevant sources are used in the assignment. Good depth and breadth of research. Uneven research, some points are well researched, others need development. Satisfactory level and depth of research. Tendency to rely on a small number of sources which limits perspectives and analysis. Insufficient evidence of research, case study relies on one or two sources (often secondary rather than primary). Criteria 2: Critical analysis of case study firm, evaluating key issues raised in the case and evaluating the relevance & feasibility of solutions raised in the case to other firms. /10 Excellent, deep level of analysis. Provides an extremely comprehensive analysis of the key issues raised by the case & evaluates the relevance & feasibility of the solutions proposed in the case to other firms (other industries, countries, size etc). Very good analysis. Provides a very good analysis of the key issues raised by the case & evaluates the relevance & feasibility of the solutions proposed in the case to other firms (other industries, countries, size etc). Good analysis. Provides a good analysis of the key issues raised by the case & evaluates the relevance & feasibility of the solutions proposed in the case to other firms (other industries, countries, size etc). Satisfactory analysis. Displays rudimentary attempt to analyse key issues raised by the case. Depth and breadth of analysis is uneven, one element may be rigorously analysed while other elements need deeper and more comprehensiv e analysis. Weak level of analysis. Displays no evidence of understanding key issues raised in the case. Instead the assignment describes the case. Criteria 3: case study provides recommendatio ns for future directions for the case study firm. /5 Excellent, develops detailed recommendation s of how and why the case study firm could develop in the future. Very good, Recommendation s could be improved with presentation of additional supporting data, or stronger explanation of how obstacles could be overcome. Presents several recommendation s however needs to strengthen the links between the recommendation s and the body of the case study. Additional evidence or consideration of tactics for implementation, methods of adaption or when to stop or replace strategy needed. Satisfactory analysis however there is a major flaw in the case study, either its focus is too narrow, so elements are not investigated, or too broad leading to superficial analysis. Unsatisfactory case study describes firm’s actions and industry rather than critically evaluating its current and future operations for managing change. Criteria 4: Case study is logically structured, well written, argument is supported by evidence, Chicago references used. /10 Excellent professional comprehensive case study analysis. Well written, clear, coherent structure with individual sections linked to each other. Points are substantiated Very good case study analysis, overall standard is high but there is one element or section which needs development perhaps it is missing supporting data, hasn’t considered potential Good case study analysis, solid standard is high but there are two or more elements or sections which needs development perhaps it is missing supporting data, hasn’t considered potential Satisfactory case study however there is several areas of weakness: disorganised random structure, weak expression, points made not supported Unsatisfactory , weak structure and organisation. Lacks a sustained developed argument – no links between sections, difficult to read and follow. Weak 20 Murdoch University with relevant evidence correctly cited. scenarios, or the actions of new market entrants with disruptive business models. scenarios, or the actions of new market entrants with disruptive business models. by appropriate references correctly cited. expression, or doesn’t cite references correctly. Criteria 5: Case study provides evidence of the teamwork process including leadership, decisionmaking, the contribution of each team member to the project. /5 Excellent detailed evidence of teamwork processes and contribution of each team member to decision-making and production of final case study. Transcripts of What’s App, Google Hanghouts, Facebook Messenger etc. Very good evidence of team work processes, clearly shows how and whom decisions were made and which team member wrote particular parts of the case study. However, one element needs improvement – how was conflict resolved, how did the team deal with ‘free loaders’. Good evidence of team work processes, shows how and whom decisions were made and which team member wrote particular parts of the case study. However, several elements need improvement – who led the project, how was conflict resolved, how did the team deal with ‘free loaders’ or team members leaving the team. Satisfactory evidence of team work processes, however need to strengthen and or clarify one or two aspects: leadership, task, role allocations, time schedule, decision making, conflict resolution, negotiation etc. Unsatisfactory , no evidence presented to indicate teamwork processes or which team members worked on particular elements of the case study.