HR9516 HRM Essentials Assignment : Employee Well-being at IMH and Reflective Learning from Nestlé

University	Northumbria University (NU)
Subject	HR9516: HRM Essentials

Module Code	HR9516	Module Title	HRM Essentials
Statement of task	This assessment invites you to address the following task: Present the outcome of your team recruitment project and write an individual essay that (a) analyses how one HRM topic from the module is implemented by managers and (b) reflects on the skills you developed through the module and the relevance of these to your future career.
Word Limit	1.      Team Presentation – 15 minutes (NO written report required) 2.      Individual Essay – 2,500 total (Written report format required)
Weighting	1.      The team presentation is worth 25% of the total marks available for this module. 2.      The Individual Essay is worth 75% of the total marks for the module.
Submission Time and Date
Submission of Assessment	Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA):  This assessment should be submitted electronically, online via Turnitin by the above date/time. You will find a Turnitin link to submit your assessment on the module eLP Blackboard site.  It is your responsibility to ensure that your assessment is submitted by the submission deadline stated. Penalties apply for late submissions
Provision of feedback	Written feedback will be provided to each group after their respective presentation.

Guidance for this assessment

1. In week 2 of semester, you will be assigned a project brief. Working as a team you will research the assigned case study organisation (your “client”) and relevant literature, as directed via the seminar programme. Your team will present your recommendations on how best to address the project brief via a 15-minute presentation to your tutor in your week 8 seminar. Your team leader should then submit your presentation slides and speaker notes via Blackboard.
2. You should also write an academic essay of 2,500 words, split into the two following sections:a. Select one topic you have studied on the module (e.g. employer branding, talent management, employment relations, well-being). Critically analyse, using academic literature, how and why the topic is implemented by front-line managers in a case study organisation. This section should be approximately 1,500 words of the total.i. I want to focus on well-being and company I choose is the Institute of Mental Health(IMH)b. Following Gibbs’ reflective cycle, reflect on what you have learned throughout the module and how what you have learned will benefit your future career. This should mention specific skills and knowledge with examples from the module of how you developed these and supporting academic references. This section should be approximately 1,000 words of the total.ii. Company given is Nestle.

Rubric – Grading criteria for the Assessment (TEAM PRESENTATION)

	Does not meet Standards		Meets Standards			Exceeds Standards
Assessment Criteria	Completely insufficient	Insufficient	Adequate	Good	Very Good	Excellent	Outstanding
	0-29%	30-39%	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-100%
TEAM PRESENTATION
1. Address project brief   (PLO5.1.2)	Does not address the project brief and client’s needs not considered.	Insufficient attempt to address the project brief which lacks consideration of client and/or recruitment needs.	Adequate attempt to investigate and address the project brief with some consideration of client needs.	Good investigation of the issue outlined in the project brief with good consideration of client needs.	Very good investigation of the issue in the project brief with clear, in-depth consideration of client needs.	Excellent investigation of the project brief and client needs have been considered throughout.	Outstanding professional investigation of the project brief with in-depth consideration of client needs, which are clearly addressed.
2. Research client background   (PLO5.1.1)	No evidence of research into the client background.	Insufficient research into client background.	Adequate attempt to include some different sources about the client. Lacks links to recommendations.	Good research undertaken into client background and context with some connection to recommendations.	Very good research into client background and context. Some clear connections made to recommendations.	Excellent research into client background and context. Robust links to recommendations.	Outstanding research into client background and context. Clear and detailed links  to recommendations.
3. Academic underpinning and referencing   (PLO5.1.1)	No evidence of research or analysis. Lacks academic theory and established practitioner models.   See here for Library Skills Plus sessions on academic reading, writing and referencing.	Insufficient research, analysis minimal. Only one or two academic or practitioner sources referred to.   See here for Library Skills Plus sessions on academic reading, writing and referencing.	Adequate research but not analysed in-depth. Small range of academic and/or practitioner sources.	Good range of research including some academic and practitioner literature. May not be fully analysed.	Very good research including both academic and practitioner sources connected to conclusions and recommendations.	Excellent research undertaken, demonstrating analysis of both academic and practitioner literature which is clearly reflected in the conclusions and recommendations.	Outstanding research including a comprehensive range of relevant academic and practitioner literature directly connected to the conclusion and recommendations.

4. Conclude & recommend   (PLO5.1.2, MLO3)	No clear, robust or relevant conclusion or recommendations.	Insufficient conclusions and recommendations which are not adequately supported.	Adequate attempt although conclusions and recommendations are basic or superficial.	Good logical conclusions and recommendations, although there is still room for improvement.	Very good conclusions and recommendations based on research and client need.	Excellent, innovative conclusions and recommendations addressing client need based on extensive research.	Outstanding conclusions and recommendations that are logical, innovative, robust and professional.
5. Communicate & Present   (PLO5.2.1, MLO5)	Presentation is completely insufficient: poor and unprofessional.   Some team members are absent.     See here for Library Skills Plus advice on presentations.	Insufficient presentation. Not professionally presented, such as errors on slides, poorly delivered and too much reading from notes.   See here for Library Skills Plus advice on presentations.	Adequate attempt at presentation but requires improvement. There may be some errors and delivery required more practice.	Good presentation.  Nicely designed slides with few errors. Delivery good although room for improvement.	Very good presentation. Well-designed slides and very good delivery. Little reading from notes.	Excellent professional presentation. Slides are very well designed with excellent delivery. There may be some innovative elements.	Outstanding, highly professional presentation. Extremely well-designed slides and innovative approach. Seamless delivery with very little reading from notes. Obviously practiced.

	Does not meet Standards		Meets Standards			Exceeds Standards
Assessment Criteria	Completely insufficient	Insufficient	Adequate	Good	Very Good	Excellent	Outstanding
	0-29%	30-39%	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-100%
INDIVIDUAL ESSAY
1.Topic Analysis   (PLO5.1.1, MLO1, MLO2)	No clear analysis and is descriptive.   No use of relevant academic literature.           [0-7]	Insufficient topic selection, largely descriptive and analysis is poor.   Minimal use of relevant academic literature.     [8-10]	Adequate topic selection and attempt at analysis.   Some use of appropriate academic literature, although still fairly descriptive.   [11-13]	Good attempt at analysing the topic.   Good use of appropriate academic literature.         [14-16]	Very good analysis of the chosen topic which is largely critical.   Very good use of appropriate literature.     [17-18]	Excellent critical analysis of the chosen topic.   Range of well-researched academic literature.       [19-21]	Outstanding thorough and critical analysis of the contemporary nature of the chosen topic.   Outstanding level of academic literature.     [22-27]
2. Case Study Analysis/Frontline Managers Analysis     (PLO5.1.2, MLO3, MLO4)	No supporting case study example.   No consideration of the role of front-line managers in relation to the topic.     [0-7]	Insufficient case study analysis.   Insufficient consideration of the role of front-line managers.     [8-10]	Adequate use of case study example.   Role of front-line managers described but lacks depth of analysis.     [11-13]	Good use of case study examples.   Good analysis of the role of front-line managers supported with case study evidence.   [14-16]	Very good case study example.   Analysis of the role of front-line managers is integrated and supported with case study evidence.   [17-18]	Excellent case study example.   Excellent integrated critical discussion of the role of front-line manager supported with evidence.   [19-21]	Outstanding analysis which is fully supported with case study example. Comprehensive critical analysis of the role of front-line managers.   [22-27]
3. Reflection and Critical Experience Log   (PLO5.3.1, MLO4)	No evidence of personal critical reflection. Largely descriptive. No future implications considered.   No use of academic literature.   [0-9]	Insufficient evidence of reflection on learning. Implications for future practice are limited.   Insufficient use of academic literature     [10-13]	Adequate reflective practice, although overly descriptive. Future implications require further developed.   Adequate level of referencing.   [14-17]	Good evidence of developing reflective practice with sound discussion of future professional practice.   Good range of academic references.     [18-20]	Very good, well-written reflection linked to future learning and professional practice.   Very good use of academic references.     [21-24]	Excellent analytical reflection which highlights future implications throughout.   Excellent use of academic references.     [25-28]	Outstanding reflective analysis with clearly structured future professional implications.   Outstanding use of academic references   [29-36]

Assessment Guidance Session

Detailed assessment guidance will be given in Week 6 seminar and the Week 12 lecture as well as throughout the seminar programme.  The Seminar/lecture will provide advice on

(i) what an excellent essay and reflection looks like (Week 6 seminar)

(ii) how to structure your essay (week 12 lecture/recorded assessment guidance)

(iii) how to reflect on what you have learned on the module (week 12 lecture)

(iv) how the assessment will be graded against the rubric

You are reminded that recorded assessment guidance will be provided on the eLP Blackboard site for this module after Week 1 lecture.

Use of Generative AI within this Assessment

In alignment with Northumbria University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA), section 1.2, you are reminded that “In all assessed work students should take care to ensure that the work presented is their own and that it fully acknowledges the work and opinions of others”.

The Northumbria Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA) which contain the Regulations and procedures applying to cheating, plagiarism, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems, and other forms of academic misconduct can be found here

Academic Regulations

You should note that:

• Word count includes the in-text references and citations but excludes tables (where these are used appropriately), reference list and appendices. Non-compliance with the word limit will result in a penalty being applied in accordance with the University Word Limit Policy which can be found here.
• Submission deadline: Work must be submitted by the dates specified. Where work is submitted after the deadline, without prior approval, a penalty will normally apply.  For guidance on the late submission of coursework, please see here.  For coursework submitted:
  • Up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.100%) shall be deducted from the assessment mark
  • Over 1 working day (over 24 hours) after the published submission deadline without approval, all 100% will be deducted. That is a 0% will be recorded but will normally be eligible for referral except where the University is prevented from doing so by a PSRB requirement.

Please see the Blackboard eLP for further details of the University Assessment Regulations