MANAGING SELF AND TEAM

ASSIGNMENT

Each group will give a presentation based on the case study (The Army Crew) followed
by a written analysis of the case. Students will work in groups to be allocated by the
EMBA team. In the first session, each group will get the case. Your assignment is to
analyse the case, using ONE of the topics introduced in the module.

There are four questions to this task:

1. Why does the Varsity team lose to the JV team?
2. What should Coach P. have done differently earlier in the season to resolve this
problem? At exactly what point should he have intervened differently?
3. At the end of the case, what action should Coach P. take on Tuesday? Why do you
recommend this action? How should he implement this action? Please be specific.
4. How would you compare the Army Crew team to other types of organizational teams?
What are the key similarities and differences? What lessons can we learn from the
Army Crew team?

Coursework will be marked against these criteria:

1. Demonstration of understanding: key components of case and topic
2. Ability to analyse the case using the chosen concept, using relevant academic material
to support arguments
3. Application of the issues raised to your own practice, and to critically assess their
likely outcomes
4. Coherent structure, linguistic fluency and accuracy, use of academic conventions (e.g.,
Harvard referencing)

Guidelines:
1. Length: 2500 words, including quotations and references
2. The assignment should be typewritten, 12 Times New Roman point-font, and double
spaced, with margins of one inch on all sides. Number pages consecutively throughout
the paper.
3. The contents of the assignment must be based on the case and reflecting your
groups opinion, discussion, details, and critical thinking.
4. Any reason for late submission will not be entertained.
5. You have to submit the Turnitin report with your assignments. Any assignment with
elements of plagiarism will not be given any mark and will be reported to the
management of UPH. Quotes from authors are allowed, but with acknowledgements
to the authors. Similarity index should be less than 20%.

Submission date: 4 April 2017 (UPH Office)

Please attach a properly prepared coversheet for your assignments. The coversheet must
indicate a title for assignment, your name and matric number, course code and title of
the course, and the module convenors name.

Please submit a softcopy to the following email address: hooicarol2@gmail.com

Presentations will be marked against these criteria:

1. Ability to critically review the case and to reflect on its value for practice
2. Ability to communicate effectively. This includes verbal exposition (i.e., no reading of
script), structure, clarity, time-keeping and teamwork (all members must take part)
3. Ability to assess team processes
4. Ability to answer questions effectively

The presentations should be no longer than 20 minutes in duration. A 5-minute question

from other groups and answer session will follow each presentation.

All group members are expected to present some portion of the analysis and teams
should strive to equally distribute the workload across team members.

Please provide a softcopy of the slides to the following email address:

hooicarol2@gmail.com

Management of groups and mark allocation

Each student will be assigned to a group. Groups should inform the module convenor in
writing/e-mail of any changes in their membership.

All group members will receive the same mark for their presentation unless
representations are received in writing from all group members requesting an unequal
mark allocation. Whilst a case for an unequal allocation of marks may be submitted with
a group project, under no circumstances will an unequal allocation of marks from any
group member be considered once a project has been marked. In other words, students
must report any problems with their group when they could still reasonably be dealt with
by the module convenor.

Assessment Rubric for Group Presentation

Presentation Marking Rubric (Group)

Marks
Visual Appeal There are many errors in spelling, grammar and 0-3
punctuation. The slides were difficult to read and
too much information had been copied onto them.
No visual appeal.
There are many errors in spelling, grammar and 4-6
punctuation. Too much information was contained
on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides
appealing or too much going on.
There are some errors in spelling, grammar and 7-9
punctuation. Too much information on two or more
slides. Significant visual appeal.
There are no errors in spelling, grammar and 10-12
punctuation. Information is clear and concise on
each slide. Visually appealing/engaging.
Total 12
Comprehension Presenters didnt understand topic. Majority of 1-6
questions answered by only one member or
majority of information incorrect.
Few members showed good understanding of some 7-12
parts of topic. Only some members accurately
answered questions.
Most showed a good understanding of topic. All 13-18
members able to answer most of audience
questions.
Extensive knowledge of topic. Members showed 19-24
complete understanding of assignment. Accurately
answered all questions posed.
 Total 24
Presentation Minimal eye contact by more than one member 1-5
Skills focusing on small part of audience. The audience
was not engaged. Majority of presenters spoke too
quickly or quietly making it difficult to understand.
Inappropriate/disinterested body language.
Members focused on only part of audience. 6-10
Sporadic eye contact by more than one presenter.
The audience was distracted. Speakers could be
heard by only half of the audience. Body language
was distracting.
Most members spoke to majority of audience; 11-15
steady eye contact. The audience was engaged by
the presentation. Majority of presenters spoke at a
suitable volume. Some fidgeting by member(s).
Regular/constant eye contact. The audience was 16-20
engaged, and presenters held the audiences
attention. Appropriate speaking volume and body
language.
Total 20
Content The presentation was a brief look at the topic but 1-6
many questions were left unanswered. Majority of
information irrelevant and significant points left
out.
The presentation was informative but several 7-12
elements went unanswered. Much of the
information irrelevant; coverage of some of major
points.
The presentation was a good summary of the topic. 13-18
Most important information covered; little
irrelevant info.
The presentation was a concise summary of the 19-24
topic with all questions answered. Comprehensive
and complete coverage of information.
Total 24
Preparedness/ Unbalanced presentation or tension resulting from 1-5
Participation/ over-helping. Multiple group members not
Group Dynamics participating. Evident lack of preparation
/rehearsal. Dependence on slides.
Significant controlling by some members with one 6-10
minimally contributing. Primarily prepared but with
some dependence on just reading off slides.
Slight domination of one presenter. Members 11-15
helped each other. Very well prepared.
All presenters knew the information, participated 16-20
equally, and helped each other as needed.
Extremely prepared and rehearsed.
Total 20
GRAND TOTAL 100