200571 Management Dynamics
Written assignment #1: Organisation Studies, CSR and Leadership
Purpose of this Assignment
This written assessment is the first of two that provides students with an exercise to assist in their understanding of two important areas of enquiry in management, viz.: the issues, concepts, themes and principles associated with corporate social responsibility and the leadership shown by managers in adopting, embracing and possibly embedding corporate social responsibility within their organisations. As indicated in the lectures, corporate social responsibility is associated more with a socio-economic view of the organisation whereas the pursuit or focus on maximizing profits (as well as possibly maximizing shareholder returns) is associated more with the neo-liberal or classical view of the organisation. There are some questions still about whether or not adopting, embracing and embedding corporate social responsibility has either a short-term (unlikely) or long-term (more likely) benefit. This would appear to add more weight and responsibility onto the organisations leaders if the organisation is to become socially responsible. This written assignment provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate your level of information literacy and your ability to present a cogent and coherent piece of writing that includes appropriate critical analysis relevant to what is outlined below in terms of this assessment. THAT IS, MERELY REPORTING WHAT OTHERS SAY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EFFECTIVE ANSWER TO THIS ASSESSMENT. In your critical analysis you should consider the views of others and then argue on what is their contribution in terms of leadership and corporate social responsibility. Completing this assignment will assist you to achieve learning outcomes:
The role, scope and importance of management in organisations.
Different approaches to understanding and analysing the dynamic nature of management and organisations.
The relationship between organisations and their stakeholders in terms of social responsibility and managerial ethics.
Assessment
Becoming a corporate socially responsible (CSR) organisation is probably more an imperative today than what it was in the last decades of the previous century. Although Robins (2008) considers that CSR has not been clearly defined or delineated and that the CSR has not been universally accepted by all corporations or organisations, decisions about corporate social responsibility are seen as important and most likely made by the organisations senior managers (Robbins, 2008, p. 335). There is support for this top-down approach to implementing and managing CSR in the discussion by Chin, Hambrick and Treviño (2013) about the impact that conservative as compared to liberal CEOs have on their organisations CSR agenda. It would appear that even when it is not their own idea these CEOs exert significant influence on the suggestions of others (such as to embrace CSR or not). From another perspective, the study by Chin, Hambrick and Treviño (2013) also challenges the view that one size fits all when considering the classical or neo-liberal view of the organisation. CEOs identified as more liberal in their political ideology see CSR as a central part of their organisations business strategy, whereas conservative CEOs see CSR activities as more cosmetic and related to corporate image and reputation (Chin, Hambrick and Treviño, 2013, p. 222). In addition, when looking at a company such as Yahoo7! (presented in the Week 3 lecture), it would appear that lower level staff are also actively involved in CSR activities as well and so may make their own contributions to CSR beyond their senior managers influences. McShane and Cunningham (2012) further consider this issue of CSR and bottom up employee acceptance or participation in CSR activities rather than the process merely being top down (leaders views on CSR). They also consider employees perceptions of their organisations CSR activities in terms of whether these activities are seen as authentic or otherwise. Within the context of this discussion, your response should focus on the following questions:
a. Do you believe that the leadership group of an organisation can have a significant impact on how a CSR agenda and its related activities are developed and implemented?
b. In terms of the leadership theories discussed in lectures, are the comments by Chin, Bambrick and Treviño (2013) more aligned with the behavioural theories of leadership (i.e. the notion that leaders are hard-wired) than they are with contingency theories of leadership (i.e. the notion that leaders are flexible and adaptable)?
c. Is it possible to talk about superficial (unauthentic) CSR as compared to embedded (authentic) CSR? Alternatively, do organisations either have or do not have CSR? What arguments would support either of these views?
d. What role do followers (in the sense of employees) have in developing and implementing CSR broadly or specifically, with respect to particular CSR activities, within an organisation? Is it a necessary and sufficient condition for leadership to be involved in developing CSR top-down (which may result in superficial CSR), but only a necessary condition in terms of developing embedded CSR (with the sufficient condition being bottom-up involvement and engagement of employees or followers)?
Your response MUST include discussion for the following sources, viz.:
Chin, MK, Hambrick, DC and Treviño, LK 2013, ‘Political Ideologies of CEOs: The Influence of Executives Values on Corporate Social Responsibility’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 197232.
McShane, L and Cunningham, P 2012, To Thine Own Self Be True? Employees Judgments of the Authenticity of Their Organisations Corporate Social Responsibility Program, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108, No. 1, pp. 81100.
In addition to the required sources shown above, you should use AT LEAST FOUR other references that you have found. A superior answer will also include some real world examples as part of the evidence that supports your claims and arguments. The format of this assessment item should follow a discussion essay format with a brief introduction, a body and a brief conclusion.
You also need to support any claims that you make by using relevant research literature, concentrating on peer-reviewed or scholarly sources.
Length:800 words (± 80 words). Note this word count does NOT include the words used to compile your References section.
Format
Given the assessment asks for a response to specific questions, it is not strictly a discussion essay but you still need to follow the essay format for this assessment.
The essay should be well-formatted with discussion of one idea in each paragraph.
The language used should be formal rather than informal and should also be both clear and grammatically sound.
Your written text should not include any spelling errors.
200571 Management Dynamics:Assignment Marking Guide
Student Number:
Student
Name:
Note: Students should be aware that the UWS policy Misconduct Student Academic Misconduct policy is applicable to this assessment task. This policy can be accessed using the following link: .uws.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00051″>http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00051
CRITERIA
STANDARDS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Understands Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Able to research further into topics and concepts
(20%)
Does not meet standard above.
Little understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Misinterprets information. Almost no evidence of research beyond text and readings.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
A basic understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Little evidence of research beyond text and readings.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
A good understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of some good additional research linked to argument.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
A sound understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of well targeted additional research which helps with development of argument.
Does not meet standard above.
An outstanding understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of excellent additional research which is very relevant to argument.
Developed an effective response to the assessment questions (25%)
Does not meet standard above.
Did not make a real attempt to answer the assessment questions.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Made a limited attempt to answer some of the assessment questions.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Made a good attempt but only answered some of the assessment questions.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Made a very good attempt and answered most of the assessment questions.
Does not meet standard above.
Made a very good attempt and answered all of the assessment questions.
Able to demonstrate independent critical analysis skills (15%)
Does not meet standard above.
Regurgitates information from lectures and readings. Little evidence of critical thinking or analysis.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
A satisfactory level of critical thinking or analysis with a tendency to describe.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
A good level of critical thinking or analysis. Insightful and critical reflections start to emerge.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
An extremely good level of critical thinking or analysis. Insightful and critical reflections are evident.
Does not meet standard above.
An excellent level of critical thinking or analysis. Insightful and critical reflections are evident. Synthesizes concepts and abstract ideas.
Able to construct a coherent and logical discussion (20%)
Does not meet standard above.
Disjointed, unfocused, poorly structured argument. Disconnected, fragmented paragraphs; no clear line of argument.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Evidence of a basic line of argument; improvement needed to create coherent argument.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Organization of ideas relatively clear, but some work still needed to take argument to a higher level.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Able to construct a coherent line of argument right through the assessment.
Does not meet standard above.
Able to construct a coherent line of argument right through the assessment, and to effectively synthesize and integrate ideas.
Able to use sound grammar and spelling (10%)
Does not meet standard above.
Poor expression due to poor grammar and/or incorrect punctuation. Unacceptable number of spelling errors.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Some grammatical discrepancies; few punctuation and spelling errors.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Relatively good grammar and punctuation. No punctuation and spelling errors.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Very good grammar and punctuation.
Does not meet standard above.
Sound grammar, punctuation and spelling. An elegant writing style. A great joy to read!
Made appropriate acknowledgements to information sources (10%)
Does not meet standard above.
Most ideas from information sources have not been appropriately acknowledged.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
Attempted Harvard referencing but displays poor grasp of academic convention.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
All of the ideas from information sources have been acknowledged. Some inconsistencies in Harvard referencing with in-text citations and/or references.
Meets neither the standard above nor the standard below.
All of the ideas from information sources have been acknowledged; a high level of understanding of the Harvard system.
Does not meet standard above.
An excellent level of comprehensive referencing throughout the assessment. Reference list is complete and without any errors.