QUESTION
Choose an industry that aligns with your personal or professional interests and imagine a hypothetical project within this industry. Your task involves a three-part analysis centred around leadership and project management within the chosen context. Appropriate source material should be used to support points throughout – remember to score highly there must be strong evidence of wider reading (academic journal papers). The assignment should be structured as follows:
Part 1- Industry and Project Context Analysis (10 Marks):
Introduce the selected industry and describe a hypothetical project within this context. Identify and list the key characteristics of the industry and the specific challenges and opportunities these characteristics may present to a hypothetical project. This part sets the stage for understanding the project environment and the industry dynamics. For example, is it highly regulated? fast paced? creative? Etc.
Referencing academic journal papers IS NOT essential in this section, although you can if you wish. However, you should still support your points by citing relevant source material (e.g. grey literature such as trade reports, company websites, news articles etc).
Part 2 – Personal Leadership and Team Selection Analysis (40 Marks):
Analyse your own leadership traits, skills, and behaviours in relation to managing the envisioned project. Reflect on your potential strengths and weaknesses as a project leader within this specific industry context. Extend this analysis to identify the traits, skills, and behaviours you would seek in your project team members to complement your leadership and ensure project success. This personal reflection should be grounded in relevant leadership theories and concepts (e.g., the Five-Factor Personality Model, Talent Themes, Katz’s Three-Skills Approach etc.).
Referencing academic journal papers IS essential in this section.
Part 3 Project Leadership Approach (50 Marks):
Develop a theory-driven argument on how you, as the project leader, would effectively run the project. Incorporate a variety of management theories and concepts to support your strategy, including but not limited to motivation theories (e.g., Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg’s two-factor theory), leadership styles (e.g., Theory X and Theory Y, transformational leadership, situational leadership), and negotiation principles (e.g., Harvard principled negotiation). Discuss how these theories and concepts would guide your approach to leadership, team management, motivation, and negotiation within the project context.
Referencing academic journal papers IS essential in this section.
RUBRIC
The marking criteria below maps on to the generic ULMS PG Marking Criteria. Half marks will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Remember to score top marks you must submit a piece of work which demonstrates:
- A mastery of the subject matter.
- Good application of the theories and concepts covered in the module to your chosen context.
- Strong critical analytic ability (critical thinking)
- Strong evidence of wider reading (see some suggested journals in reading list on Canvas).
- Very well written
Part 1- Industry and Project Context Analysis (10 Marks):
| Category | Feedback | Score |
| Perfect Response | Exceptional introduction to the hypothetical project context, detailing all necessary industry characteristics with robust supporting material. Please note: it is incredibly rare to obtain 100% in any university assignment. | 10 |
| Excellent | Comprehensive and detailed analysis with strong support from high-quality grey literature. | 8.5 |
| Very good | Clear and detailed overview of the industry and project, with relevant supporting material used appropriately and consistently. | 7.5 |
| Good | Good overview with some relevant support material; could benefit from additional analytical depth and stronger evidencing of points with appropriate source material. | 6.5 |
| Satisfactory | Adequate overview with some supporting material but needs more analytical depth and more numerous, high-quality sources. | 5.5 |
| Poor | Lacks detail and adequate supporting material and/or poorly written | 4.5 |
| Missing section | There was no response submitted for this part of the report. | 0 |
Part 2 – Personal Leadership and Team Selection Analysis (40 Marks):
| Category | Feedback | Score |
| Perfect Response | Perfect response – your response to this part of the brief was perfect; it included all the necessary elements and was written in a manner that could be publishable in academic journal articles. In-depth, personalized leadership and team analysis, fully supported by academic journals, demonstrating original thought and critical analysis. Please note: it is incredibly rare to obtain 100% in any university assignment. | 40 |
| Excellent | Thorough and personalised leadership analysis with excellent theory application and critical insight, supported by a substantial range of academic research. Excellently written. | 34 |
| Very good | Well-executed analysis with relevant personal reflection and solid theoretical backing, and strong evidence of wider reading. | 30 |
| Good | Solid leadership reflection with good theoretical application, points supported well with appropriate academic source material | 26 |
| Satisfactory | Adequate response but analysis lacks depth and may be too descriptive overall. Stronger theoretical application needed, some competent use of academic source material to support points but more evidence of wider reading needed to strengthen response and demonstrate deeper understanding of the subject. | 22 |
| Poor | Insufficient analysis with limited personal reflection and minimal theoretical understanding; little evidence of wider reading. Poor execution of the brief in part or in full. | 18 |
| Missing Section | There was no response submitted for this part of the report. | 0 |
Part 3 Project Leadership Approach (50 Marks):
| Category | Feedback | Score |
| Perfect Response | Flawlessly argued strategy for project leadership, comprehensively supported by a range of management theories and academic research. | 50 |
| Excellent | Excellent strategy argumentation, well-aligned with leadership theories, fully supported by academic research. | 42.5 |
| Very good | Very good strategic approach with solid theory application, strongly supported by academic research. | 37.5 |
| Good | Good, coherent strategy with appropriate theory application, good academic support. | 32.5 |
| Satisfactory | Competent strategy with some theory application, but needs stronger academic support and application depth. | 27.5 |
| Poor | Weak strategy argumentation with insufficient theoretical underpinning and inadequate academic support. | 22.5 |
| Missing Section | There was no response submitted for this part of the report. | 0 |