Context of Business

London School of Commerce In association with the University of Suffolk

Assignment Brief

Course/Programme:	BABS Foundation
Level:	3
Module Title:	Context of Business
Intake	September 2020
Term	September 2020
Module Leaders:	Guru Srinivasan
Assignment title:	Leadership and Business Environment – Case Study
Weighting:	100%
Date given out:	October 2020
Submission date:	21st December 2020
Eligible for late submission (3 working days, with penalty)?	Yes
Method of submission:	X	Online only		Online and Paper copy
Special instructions for submission (if any):
Date for results and feedback:
Employability skills assessed:	Judgement and personal responsibility and initiative in complex professional environments
Learning outcomes assessed:	As included under the assessment briefs

Referencing:	In the main body of your submission you must give credit to authors on whose research your work is based. Append to your submission a reference list that indicates the books, articles, etc. that you have read or quoted in order to complete this assignment (e.g. for books: surname of author and initials, year of publication, title of book, edition, publisher: place of publication).
Disclosure:	Please include the following statement on the title page of the submitted assignment, followed by your name: I declare that this assignment is all my own work and that I have acknowledged all materials used from the published or unpublished works of other people. All references have been duly cited.

Assignment Mark (Assessment marks are subject to ratification at the Assessment Board. These comments and marks are to give feedback on module work and are for guidance only until they are confirmed. )	Late Submission Penalties (X if appropriate)	Capped at 40% 100%
Up 72 hours late	X
Over 72 hours late

TASK DESCRIPTION – AMAZON Case Study

Please read the paragraphs given below carefully and complete the tasks given at the end

Amazon, just like Apple, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard had a very humble beginning from a garage with a $250,000 investment from the parents of Jess Bezos as an online book store in 1995. Today the company is worth over £1 trillion.

The story of Amazon had not always been a fairy tale ride. The company faced numerous challenges over the years and faced near bankruptcy. The story of Amazon is not just littered with their success. There are number of notable failures including its attempt to compete with eBay through their auction site, their failed mobile phones business and number of issues and criticisms on working conditions. In its early days, the company expected employees to put in 60 hours a week at work and this practice still continues and has attracted many criticisms, but Jeff Bezos considers it to be one of the factors contributing to its success. Amazon was one of the online businesses that survived the “dot-com” bubble burst of 2001. The company has also been successful in Cloud computing, grocery business and online streaming competing with the likes of Microsoft, Spotify, Aplphabet and Netflix.

According to many writers and consultants, the success of Amazon can be attributed to the leadership and management of its founder Jeff Bezos, the ability of the company to quickly recognize and take advantage of opportunities and being resilient facing the challenges, their strong ethics to name a few.

The present Covid-19 crisis while being a doomsday for many businesses, amazon used it as an opportunity to become a Trillion Dollar Company.

Bibliography

Hall, M., 2019. Amazon.com. [Online]
Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Amazoncom
[Accessed 26 August 2020].

Hartmans, A., 2020. ‘Amazon’ wasn’t the original name of Jeff Bezos’ company, and 14 other little-known facts about the early days of Amazon. [Online]
Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-amazon-history-facts-2017-4?r=US&IR=T
[Accessed 24 August 2020].

McFadden, C., 2019. A Very Brief History of Amazon: the Everything Store. [Online]
Available at: https://interestingengineering.com/a-very-brief-history-of-amazon-the-everything-store
[Accessed 26 August 2020].

Tasks to complete

1. Perform a SWOT and PESTEL analysis for Amazon. (10%)

2. From the analysis in task 1, in your opinion, evaluate how the changes in PESTEL factors has influenced the Opportunities and Threats business. Critically comment on how the company is addressing their Strengths to negate Threats and Weakness affecting their Opportunities. (20%)

3. Compare and contrast the different styles of leadership. Comment on the current leadership and management style at Amazon. (20%)

4. Recommend a suitable leadership style that will match their management style and help Amazon grow further. Justify your choice using appropriate literature. (10%),

5. Comment on the Responsibility, Response and Obligations in their Ethics and Social Responsibilities in the processes at Amazon using evidence from your research. (20%)

6. The second part of the assignment will involve writing a reflection report on your experience in writing this report. In this you will reflect on the knowledge you gained from your research and how it benefitted in applying the theories to the practical framework of Amazon. (20%)

This assessment addresses

LO1: Understand the dynamic and changing nature of business and the consideration of the future of organisations within the global business environment

LO2: Identify the need for individuals and organisations to manage responsibly and sustainably and behave ethically in relation to social, cultural, economic and environmental issues

LO3: Discuss leadership, management and development of people 

LO4: Discuss the development of appropriate policies and strategies within a changing environment to meet stakeholder interests

LO5: Discuss the design and development of organisations.

Length Required

Minimum 2500 to maximum 3000 words. (Including reflection report)

Formatting and Report

Please note the following when completing your written assignment:

1. Writing: Written in English in an appropriate business/academic style
2. Focus: Focus only on the tasks set in the assignment.
3. Length: Minimum 2000 to maximum 3000 words (Including reflection report)
4. Document format: Individual Report
5. Ensure a clear title, course, and Student ID number is on a cover sheet and a citations and reference list using Harvard Referencing Style throughout is also provided.

Research: Research should use reliable and relevant sources of information e.g. academic books and journals that have been peer reviewed. You are expected to have a minimum of FIVE different sources referenced.

LEVEL 3 INDICATIVE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

An outstanding Distinction	90 – 100	Work which fulfils all the criteria of the grade below, but at an exceptional standard.
A very strong distinction	80 – 89	Work of distinguished quality which is based on a rigorous and broad knowledge base, and demonstrating sustained ability to analyse, synthesise, evaluate and interpret concepts, principles and data within field of study, using defined principles, techniques and/or standard formats and applications. This will form the basis for the development of sound arguments and judgements appropriate to the field of study/ assessment task. There will be strong evidence of competence across a range of specialised skills, using them to plan, develop and evaluate problem solving strategies, and of the capability to operate autonomously and self-evaluate with guidance in varied structured contexts. Outputs will be communicated effectively, accurately and reliably.
A clear Distinction	71 – 79	Work of very good quality which displays most but not all of the criteria for the grade above.
A Distinction	70	Work of highly commendable quality which clearly fulfils the criteria for the grade below, but shows a greater degree of capability in relevant intellectual/subject/key skills.
A very strong Merit	67 – 69	Work of commendable quality based on a strong factual/conceptual knowledge base for the field of study, including an assured grasp of concepts and principles, together with effective deployment of skills relevant to the discipline and assessment task. There will be clear evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application, and the ability to work effectively within defined guidelines to meet defined objectives. There will be consistent evidence of capability in all relevant subject based and key skills, including the ability to self-evaluate and work autonomously under guidance and to use effectively specified standard techniques in appropriate contexts.
A strong merit	64 – 66	Work of good quality which contains most, but not all of the characteristics of the grade above.
A clear Merit	61 – 63	Work which clearly fulfils all the criteria of the grade below, but shows a greater degree of capability in relevant intellectual/subject/key skills.
Merit	60	Work of sound quality based on a firm factual/ conceptual knowledge base for the field of study, demonstrating a good grasp of relevant principles/concepts, together with the ability to organise and communicate effectively. The work may be rather standard, but will be mostly accurate and provide some evidence of the ability to analyse, synthesise, evaluate and apply standard methods/techniques, under guidance. There will be no serious omissions or inaccuracies. There will be good evidence of ability to take responsibility for own learning, to operate with limited autonomy in predictable defined contexts, selecting and using relevant techniques, and to demonstrate competence in relevant key skills.
A very strong Pass	55 – 59	Work of capable quality which contains some of the characteristics of grade above.
A strong Pass	50 – 54	Work of satisfactory quality demonstrating a reliable knowledge base and evidence of developed key skills and/or subject based skills, but containing limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation or application.
A Pass	41 – 49	Work of broadly satisfactory quality covering adequately the factual and/or conceptual knowledge base of the field of study and appropriately presented and organised, but is primarily descriptive or derivative, with only occasional evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation or application. There may be some misunderstanding of key concepts/principles and limitations in the ability to select relevant material or techniques and/or in communication or other relevant skills, so that the work may include some errors, omissions or irrelevancies. There will be evidence of ability to operate with limited autonomy in predictable defined contexts, using standard techniques, and to meet threshold standards in relevant key skills.
A bare Pass	40	Work of bare pass standard demonstrating some familiarity with and grasp of a factual/conceptual knowledge base for the field of study, together with evidence of some ability to employ specialist skills to solve problems within area of study, but only just meeting threshold standards in e.g. evaluation and interpretation of data and information, reasoning and soundness of judgment, communication, application, or quality of outputs. Work may be characterised by some significant errors, omissions or problems, but there will be sufficient evidence of development and competence to operate in specified contexts taking responsibility for the nature and quality of outputs.
A marginal Fail	30 – 39	Work which indicates some evidence of engagement with area of study in relation to acquisition of knowledge and understanding of concepts and principles, and of specialist skills, but which is essentially misinterpreted, and misapplied and/or contains some significant omission or misunderstanding, or otherwise just fails to meet threshold standards in e.g. communication, application or quality of outputs.
A Fail	20 – 29	Work that falls well short of the threshold standards in relation to one or more area of knowledge, intellectual, subject based or key skills. It may address the assessment task to some extent, or include evidence of successful engagement with some of the subject matter, but such satisfactory characteristics will be clearly outweighed by major deficiencies across remaining areas.
A comprehensive Fail	0 – 19	Work of poor quality which is based on only minimal understanding, application or effort. It will offer only very limited evidence of familiarity with knowledge or skills appropriate to the field of study or task and/or demonstrate inadequate capability in key skills essential to the task concerned.
Non-submission/Nil attempt	0	Nothing, or nothing of merit, presented.

Assessment Criteria:

COMMON ASSESSMENT AND MARKING CRITERIA
	OUTRIGHT FAIL	UNSATISFACTORY	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	EXCEPTIONAL
Assessment Criteria	0-29%	30-39%*	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-100%
Research-informed Literature. Extent of research and/or own reading, selection of credible sources, application of appropriate referencing conventions.	Little or no evidence of reading.	Poor evidence of reading and/or of reliance on inappropriate sources, and/or indiscriminate use of sources. Referencing conventions used inconsistently.	References to a limited range of mostly relevant sources. Some omissions and minor errors. Referencing conventions evident though not always applied consistently.	Inclusion of a range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently. Referencing conventions mostly consistently applied.	Inclusion of a wide range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently. Selection of relevant and credible sources. Very good use of referencing conventions, consistently applied.	A comprehensive range of research informed literature embedded in the work. Excellent selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills, consistently applied.	Outstanding knowledge of research-informed literature embedded in the work. Outstanding selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills consistently and professionally applied.
Knowledge and Understanding of Subject Extent of knowledge and understanding of concepts and underlying principles associated.	Major gaps in knowledge and understanding of material at this level. Substantial inaccuracies.	Gaps in knowledge, with only superficial understanding. Some significant inaccuracies.	Evidence of basic knowledge and understanding of the relevant concepts and underlying principles.	Knowledge is accurate with a good understanding of the field of study.	Knowledge is extensive. Exhibits understanding of the breadth and depth of established views.	Excellent knowledge and understanding of the main concepts and key theories. Clear awareness of challenges to established views and the limitations of the knowledge base.	Highly detailed knowledge and understanding of the main theories/concepts, and a critical awareness of the ambiguities and limitations of knowledge.
Analysis Analysis, evaluation and synthesis; logic, argument and judgement; analytical reflection; organisation of ideas and evidence.	Unsubstantiated generalisations made without use of any credible evidence. Lack of logic, leading to unsupportable/ missing conclusions. Lack of any attempt to analyse, synthesise or evaluate.	Some evidence of analytical intellectual skills, but for the most part descriptive. Ideas/findings sometimes illogical and contradictory. Generalised statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance.	Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and some attempts to synthesise, albeit with some weaknesses. Some relevant conclusions and recommendations, where relevant.	Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and synthesis. Can analyse new and/or abstract data and situations without guidance. Valid conclusions and recommendations, where relevant	Sound, logical, analytical thinking; synthesis and evaluation. Ability to devise and sustain persuasive arguments, and to review the reliability, validity & significance of evidence. Ability to communicate ideas and evidence accurately and convincingly. Sound, convincing conclusions / recommendations.	Thoroughly logical work supported by evaluated evidence. High quality analysis developed independently or through effective collaboration. Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions. Strong, persuasive, conclusions, justifiable recommendations.	Exceptional work; judiciously selected and evaluated evidence. Very high-quality analysis developed independently or through effective collaboration. Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions. Highly persuasive conclusions
Skills for Professional Practice Demonstrates attributes expected in professional practice. Clarity and effectiveness in presentation and organisation.	Communication media is inappropriate or misapplied. Work is poorly structured and/or largely incoherent.	Media is poorly designed and/or not suitable for the audience. Work lacks structure, organisation, and/or coherence	Can communicate in a suitable format but with some room for improvement. Work lacks coherence in places and could be better structured.	Can communicate effectively in a suitable format but may have minor errors. Mostly coherent work and is in a suitable structure.	Can communicate well, confidently and consistently in a suitable format. Work is coherent and fluent and is well structured and organised.	Can communicate professionally and, confidently in a suitable format. Work is coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally.	Can communicate with an exceptionally high level of professionalism. Work is exceptionally coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally.