BS566 Leading and Developing People Level 7 Assessment Brief | ULaw

BS566 L7 ASSESSMENT BRIEF

L7 Leading and Developing People

By sitting this assessment, I am confirming:

• That I have worked independently on this assessment submission, and I have not worked together with any current or previous student at the University to produce my submission, other than when officially permitted to do so;
• I also confirm the contents of my submission have not been generated by a third party;
• I have fully referenced and correctly cited the work of others, where required;
• I have not used any generative AI tools to generate, rephrase or otherwise produce content for this submission, except where their use was explicitly permitted, and I have read and understood the University’s AI in Higher Education Policy and Protocols;
• I have read the Student Discipline Regulations and understand that any academic misconduct can lead to disciplinary consequences and undermine academic integrity;
• I understand that where applicable, I am expected to engage with my academic work in a manner that meets the professional standards and requirements set by the relevant Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) or accrediting body for my course.

By submitting this assessment submission, I am confirming that I am fit to sit according to the Assessment Regulations.

Key Details and Requirements Learning outcomes:

1. Synthesise and critically review major theories of HRM and HRD, understanding how development, impacts on improvement. This will include motivational and engagement theories and how these are put into practice, in organisations.
2. Critically evaluate good leadership style, its impact on strategy, its characteristics, ethics and values and the methods that organisations, use to develop their employees.
3. Critically assess the role of HRM and HRD, including the methods and practices within different organisations, in particular with regard to constructing development plans and managing change.

Assessment details: Individual written report, 100% (2,500 words)

Referencing: Students are expected to use Harvard Referencing throughout their assignments where required. Please follow the Harvard Referencing Handbook for all your assignments at the ULBS.

Submission Method: Turnitin – Your work will be put through Turnitin. All submissions will be electronically checked for plagiarism and the use of AI software.

You have the option to upload your work ahead of the deadline, more than once. ULBS will be reviewing your last submission only. You can only upload one file. For example, if your work contains a word document and power point slides/Excel spreadsheet you will need to copy your slides/spreadsheet into the word document.

Note: Keep in mind that self-plagiarism (when you reuse your own specific wording and ideas from work that you have previously submitted without referencing yourself) is also a form of plagiarism and is not allowed.

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

How Kelly Ortberg is piloting Boeing from crisis to cash
Despite positive data points, trust between the planemaker and its shareholders, customers and regulators remains fragile
(published June 9, 2025)
(available at Financial Times)

Kelly Ortberg came out of retirement to take on the biggest challenge in global aerospace: turning around Boeing. Ten months into the job, Ortberg has shored up the company’s finances, improved industrial relations and stabilised production of its 737 Max aircraft. However, he is still a long way from declaring victory.

At the industry’s biggest gathering in Paris next week, Ortberg will face questions on the challenges that remain: Boeing must strike a deal with regulators to restore production rates, fix its frayed relationship with suppliers, foster a change in culture among its 170,000 staff, and start to generate cash.

Ortberg must also contend with the chaos in world trade — and the airliner market — caused by US President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs.

Trust in the company following the two fatal crashes of its 737 Max aircraft remains fragile; Boeing confirmed last week it would pay $1.1bn to avoid prosecution over the crashes but families of the 346 victims are fighting the agreement in court.

A former chief executive of a Boeing supplier, the 65-year old said he went into the job with his eyes wide open. “In the main, I knew what I was getting into . . . there were no real surprises,” he told the Financial Times.

Boeing’s recovery is critical for the global aerospace industry, which relies on the US group and its European rival Airbus, to build most of the world’s commercial passenger aircraft.

Ortberg has managed to stabilise the company — its shares are up 22 per cent since January and it is delivering more planes — but he stressed that restoring Boeing to its status as a US manufacturing champion would be a “multiyear” process.

Bank of America analyst Ron Epstein, who once compared Boeing’s performance to that of a Greek tragedy, said with Kelly’s arrival, the “narrative has changed . . . Under [his] leadership, we are more confident [Boeing] can break the ‘doom loop’.”

On Ortberg’s to-do list is a fresh approach to the supply chain. Boeing, he said, must keep its suppliers informed of challenges that arise as the manufacturer sought to build more Maxes each month. Raising output will allow the company to generate cash, a critical metric for shareholders and important funding for the development of a new aircraft model.

Boeing built 38 Maxes in May — the first time it has done so since late 2020. It now needs to demonstrate to the US Federal Aviation Administration that it can safely build more. Regulators imposed the production cap after a door panel blew off a jet mid-flight in January 2024.

Getting suppliers on board is therefore critical. Ortberg has first-hand experience of how Boeing squeezed its suppliers. He headed Rockwell Collins, an avionics maker now part of RTX, from 2013 to

Javier de Luis, an aeronautics lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose sister was killed in the 2019 crash, said the deal “does not provide accountability, since no one is held criminally responsible” and the fines amounted to “the cost of doing business”.

“Five years after the deadly crashes a door fell off a Boeing aeroplane,” he added. “If Boeing didn’t fix its problems in the five years since my sister’s death, what makes the DOJ think that it will do so under this agreement?”

Despite “all the positive data points”, trust between Boeing and its shareholders, customers and regulatory agencies remained fragile, cautioned Epstein.

“After years of mis-steps, it will only take one failure to send the boulder rolling back down the hill.”

Assignment Context (Read Carefully):

The Financial Times article titled “How Kelly Ortberg is piloting Boeing from crisis to cash” (published 9 June 2025) is included solely to familiarise you with the recent events and leadership developments at Boeing. This article outlines key events, decisions and leadership challenges that have shaped the company’s recent transformation journey.

This article is included for contextual understanding only and does not contain the answers to the assessment questions. Your task is to independently research the wider strategic, cultural and HRM/HRD developments at Boeing using a wide range of credible, English- language sources, including academic journals, leadership studies, HRM/HRD frameworks and business analysis. You are expected to apply these sources critically and analytically to the specific questions asked in the assignment brief.

The article is provided purely for orientation purposes and should help you contextualise your analysis. To successfully complete the assignment, you must go beyond the article and demonstrate academic rigour, theoretical insight and evidence-based judgement throughout your written report.

Assignment Task:

Assume the role of a Leadership Development Consultant appointed by Boeing’s Board of Directors. Prepare a professionally written report that addresses the following:

1. Critically review Boeing’s strategies for managing and developing people under Kelly Ortberg, referring to key theories of Human Resource Management (HRM) and Human Resource Development (HRD) (LO1, LO3).
2. Critically discuss the impacts of leadership styles on Boeing’s overall strategy, detailing the characteristics, ethics and values of good leadership demonstrated or needed in this context (LO2).
3. Critically evaluate how employee motivation and engagement have been implemented at Boeing. Discuss current methods used to develop employees and make recommendations for improvement supported by relevant academic theories, models and frameworks (LO1, LO2).
4. Critically discuss the HRM and HRD methods and practices currently applied at Boeing, making specific recommendations for practice. Provide recommendations for changes to the current leadership style or a justification for maintaining it, focusing on how it could encourage innovation within Boeing (LO2, LO3).

You should communicate your ideas effectively in writing by writing a professional report using an appropriate structure and writing style (including Harvard Referencing).

You should refer to academic concepts, theories and practices in a critical and informed way, with reference to key texts and academic articles, as well as by referring to examples from the given organisation.
All sources should be correctly acknowledged, and a list of references provided. This list of references is excluded from the word count.

Please refer to the marking criteria (below) for a breakdown of how this assignment will be marked.

BS566 L7 Assessment Criteria: 

GRADE DESCRIPTORS MARKING CRITERIA*	Mark Weight	FAIL (0 – 49%)	PASS (50 – 59%)	COMMENDATION (60 – 69%)	DISTINCTION (70-100%)
		Exhibits an unsatisfactory grasp of the issues.Primarily descriptive and lacking in independent critical thought. Weak or no attempt at analysis, synthesis and critical reflection. Little evidence of ability to tackle the issues. Poor structure/grammar/	Satisfactory grasp of the issues, with limited independent critical thought appropriate to the tasks. Material is largely relevant to the tasks. Some evidence of analysis, synthesis and critical reflection. Work is presented in acceptable manner, with some minor errors.	Good/very good understanding of the issue with some independent critical thought and approach to the tasks.Good attempt at analysis, synthesis and critical reflection, with evidence of some ability to tackle issues. Work is clearly presented in a fairly well organised manner.	Excellent level of understanding. All requirements are dealt with to a high standard. Excellent analysis, synthesis and critical reflection. Evidence of independent and original judgement in relation to resolution of problems Excellently presented.
The student has critically reviewed Boeing’s strategies for managing and developing people under Kelly Ortberg’s leadership, referring to key theories of Human Resource Management (HRM) and Human Resource Development (HRD) (LO1, LO3).	20
The student has critically discussed the impacts that leadership styles have had on Boeing’s overall strategy, detailing the characteristics, ethics and values of good leadership relevant to Ortberg’s approach (LO2).	20
The student has critically evaluated how employee motivation and engagement have been implemented at Boeing under Kelly Ortberg’s leadership, discussed the current methods Boeing uses to develop its employees and made recommendations for improving motivation and engagement supported by relevant academic theories, models, and frameworks (LO1, LO2).	25
The student has critically discussed the HRM and HRD methods and practices currently applied at Boeing, made specific recommendations for improvement and provided recommendations for changes to the current leadership style or a justification for maintaining it, focusing on encouraging innovation within Boeing (LO2, LO3).	25
The student has applied the Harvard referencing system effectively, drawing on reliable and relevant sources related to Boeing’s transformation under Kelly Ortberg’s leadership, with accurate citations. The report is well structured,cohesive and flows logically.	10