ASSIGNMENT QUESTION

Written Essay Instructions

You have been tasked to write a 3000-word essay to define and demonstrate understanding of the importance of leadership skills in healthcare management. The essay will require you to define and reflect upon the overall role of leadership including some of the effective skills required to become a good leader from your own experience (as the essay contains a reflective component, it can be written in first person using “I” or in third person if still desired).

TASK:

1 – Critically evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of McKinsey 7-s

Framework in today’s health and social care sector.  (40 Marks)

2 Discuss the specific skills required to be a good leader by critically reflecting upon yourself and your own work and life experiences.  (answers should be linked to elements of the Graduate Capital Model and supported by relevant leadership theory). (50 marks)

3 – All suggestions and answer must have academic justification and correct Harvard Style referencing (10 Marks).

Essay Format – 3000 Words

Ensure you use the correct essay format:

• Introduction

• Body

• Conclusion

• References

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of leadership theories with critical analysis as to the potential positives and negatives of each theory. (LO 1)

Critically reflect on individual leadership skills and how they relate to theories presented. (LO 2)

READING REQUIREMENT

Core Reading (Kortext)

Jabri, M. 2018. Managing Organizational Change: Process, Social Construction and Dialogue. (2nd Ed). London. Palgrave.

Recommended Reading

Anderson, S., 2017. Leading organisations. ABC of Clinical Leadership. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, pp.29-32.

Banfield, P and Kay, R. 2012. Introduction to Human Resource Management (2nd Ed). Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, AA. 1982. Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. 2010. Frontmatter. In Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art (pp. I-Vi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hayes, J. 2014. The Theory and Practice of Change Management (4th Ed). London. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hofstede, G. 2003. Cultures and Organisations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival: Software of the Mind, London-UK, Profile Books Ltd.

Kotter, J. 2012. Leading Change. Boston. Harvard Business Review Press

Northouse, P. G. 2015. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 7th Ed. London; Sage Publications Ltd.

Schein, E. H. 2004. Organisational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

Scott, T.I.M., Mannion, R., Davies, H.T. and Marshall, M.N., 2003. Implementing culture change in health care: theory and practice. International journal for quality in health care, 15(2), pp.111-118.

Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced.

Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.

Please note:

• The word count should be 3000 words (+/- 10%)

• You may include appropriate graphics to support your points if you consider they will add value to your answer

• This is to be written as an essay

• References are NOT included in the word count

• You must use academic theory and other robust sources to support your text, and any theory used should be applied to the context of the scenario

• You must use in-text citations to evidence your work, in addition to producing a full list of references. All of these should conform to Harvard Referencing format.

• The bulk of this text should be your own original work and should be paraphrased

Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS LEVEL 6 (was level 3)

Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill sets.  Students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism.

Mark Bands Outcome Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills

  90-100% Achieves module outcome(s) related to

GLO at this level  Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy.  Work may be considered for publication within Anglia Ruskin University Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional

structure/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills. Work may be considered for publication within Anglia Ruskin University

80-89% Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination.  Outstanding team/practical/professional skills

70-79% Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in

theory/practice/ethics of discipline with considerable originality Excellent management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Excellent academic/intellectual skills and practical/team/professional/problem-solving skills

60-69% Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality Good management of learning resources, with consistent self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/professional/problem solving skills

50-59% Sound knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline Sound management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research but inconsistent. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Acceptable level of academic/intellectual skills going beyond description at times. Sound team/practical/professional/problemsolving skills

40-49% A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of theoretical/ethical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or solve problems in discipline Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/intellectual skills. Some difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing

team/practical/professional/problem-solving skills

30-39% A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Possible compensation.

Satisfies qualifying mark Limited knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline Limited use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Limited academic/

intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. General difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression.

Practical/professional/problem-solving skills that are not yet secure

20-29% Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO.  Qualifying mark not

satisfied.  No

compensation available  Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues.  Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline Little evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Little evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Little evidence of

practical/professional/problem-solving skills

10-19% Deficient knowledge base. Deficient understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Major difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline Deficient use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Deficient input to teams. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Deficient practical/professional/problemsolving skills

1-9% No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues.  Total inability with theory and problem solving in discipline No evidence of use of learning resources. Completely unable to work autonomously. No evidence of input to teams. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly descriptive. Incoherent structure/accuracy and expression. No evidence of

practical/professional/problem-solving skills

0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g.: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes