We're Open

0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written

Explain and give examples of the differences between management and leadership in organisations, describing appropriate behaviours and skills that should be demonstrated.

Outcomes covered 1 and 2

Assessment task instructions

The table below summarises how each assessment exemplar task relates to coverage of the Outcomes detailed in the Unit specification. It also indicates the evidence which should be retained for external moderation.

Outcomes

Suggested task

Suggested evidence to be retained

1 and 2

Case Study and report

(1500–2000 words)

Written report or equivalent


The assessment task requires candidates to submit responses to seven questions.

The Faboil Ltd case study materials are a foundation to assist candidates, but in some instances the information in the case study is just a starting point and candidates must make use of ideas that they have studied during this Unit.

Candidates must fully answer all the questions and present their responses in a report format, with a recommended word count of between 1500–2000 words. The layout is the candidates’ own choice but they must ensure their responses cover both Outcomes.

Candidates may wish to make use of the seven questions to structure their report format and in each section they should also include reference to theoretical approaches to back up any examples given.

Candidates are strongly encouraged to present the report in a word-processed format, to reflect good business practice. They are also encouraged to use facilities such as the internet, journals, library resources, as well as teaching materials given during the Unit. Their report must meet all aspects of the Evidence Requirements, as given in the assessment checklist

Case study

Faboil Ltd

Faboil Ltd has evolved into a relatively successful organisation within the biotechnology field. Credit for the company’s success stems largely from the paternal approach adopted by its founder, Dr Alfred Brownlow, who now wishes to retire from the organisation, having recently celebrated his 70th birthday.

Dr Brownlow has very much ‘led from the front’ in terms of developing the product range for Faboil and has had the final say in the appointment of all Senior Managers.

The organisational structure for Senior Management at Faboil Ltd is detailed in

Appendix A.

Background

Faboil, at the leading edge of biotechnology, has been driven very hard by Richard Cranberry (Director of Biotechnology) to maintain this status. However, the organisation lags well behind in terms of its ‘modus operandi’ (its way of doing things).

Richard Cranberry has encouraged his three project teams to develop new products, as quickly as possible, for their entry into the market. To reach the pre-set targets demanded by him, project teams must work very closely with Brenda Frame (Chief Scientific Officer) and her small team. Innovative products manufactured by Faboil, which meet (and exceed) environmental regulations, include low-solvent-content paints, semi-aqueous terpene-based cleaning agents, alternative refrigerants (propane-isobutane mix), rechargeable lithium batteries and water-based and soy printing inks.

In some instances, however, the new products have failed to live up to market expectations and, as a consequence, Judith Smythe’s Sales and Marketing team have had a torrid time from some long-established customers. In fact, it would be fair to say that Faboil almost held a monopoly position some eight years ago, but this has slowly eroded away and currently they hold a 20% market share. Two of their competitors hold 25% each and the remainder is held by a large number of small, but specialist firms.

As a result, Dr Brownlow decided that he needed to develop his senior staff to contend with the problems mentioned above and the mounting competition from other firms, from within the UK and overseas markets.

As far as Richard is concerned, the problems lie not with his style of management, but by the lack of leadership and management adopted by Brenda Frame and Judith Smythe.

Initially, Brenda Frame and Judith Smythe were sent on a leadership course run by a large, successful UK training company. Both Brenda and Judith returned from the programme well motivated and enthusiastic, and keen to try out some new practices. Immediately they started to implement some new strategies designed to empower their staff in the hope that this would produce better overall results.

At a recent monthly executive meeting, both Brenda and Judith’s enthusiasm was very much in evidence and Dr Brownlow believed he had made a smart move in selecting them to attend the leadership course. On the other hand, Richard Cranberry and Fred Windows (Financial Director) were both negative about the course and suggested that Brenda and Judith were simply following modern ‘fads’ and that no long-lasting benefits would be achieved. Richard and Fred cited previous examples whereby they themselves attended similar events and found that they knew more about management and leadership than the programme leaders and, therefore, claimed they gained nothing from the experience.

Rather than allow the pessimism to reign, Brenda recounted the changes that had taken place in her team. Previously, as someone who simply issued instructions to her staff and demanded that they carry out her orders, she now involved them in many aspects of the work of her department. By recognising her staff has valuable contributions to make, she encouraged them to bring forward both their concerns and ideas. In addition, she has also tried to deal with their concerns in a constructive manner, addressing those which could be resolved quickly and taking a little more time over the contentious issues. Within a few weeks, the number and range of ideas coming forward from her staff had been impressive and this led to several working parties being established across the organisation. These working parties complement the project groups under Richard’s control and had included, where possible, a member (or members) from the project groups. Richard was unhappy with this approach, and decided that none of his project staff will, in future, be involved with the working party groups, believing their involvement would simply detract from their ‘real’ job. Despite Brenda’s protestations, Richard has adamantly refused to yield on this matter.

Judith Smythe’s enthusiastic approach has had a huge impact on her staff who can see major benefits from working with a cross section of people from across the organisation. Previously her team’s approach was solely to sell the new products in the market place, regardless of the needs of their customers or the lack of good market research. Since the working parties were formed, some of Faboil’s customers have been involved in ‘focus group’ discussions and valuable lessons have been learned.

Stuart Goodall (Purchasing Manager) has also been involved in the working parties and has concluded that his role warrants a more strategic position. In previous times, Stuart simply reacted to calls from the project groups to buy a wide range of commodities and capital items without any regard to budgets etc. Similarly, if Sales and Marketing decided to promote one of its products, he was the last to be told. As

a consequence, he and his team were making ad hoc purchases which were costing the organisation far more than would be the case if Operations and Production liaised more closely with Sales and Marketing about their sales strategy

At the same meeting, Fred Windows, Financial Director and line manager to both Stuart Goodall and Ian Carter, said that the organisation was making ‘good enough profits’ without having to do vast amounts of forward planning. He believed that information from previous years was sufficient evidence to plan the present and next year’s operations. (Dr Brownlow was not convinced, especially since the organisation was losing its market share. Did the organisation need to buy or hold the same or higher levels of stock as it had in previous years?)

It was becoming more apparent to Dr Brownlow that he could not leave the firm in such a dysfunctional state, even though, at his age, retirement was an ideal option.

Recent events

At the start of the year, Richard Cranberry decided to off-load several tasks to his three Project Team Leaders — Ian Campbell, Carole Devlin and Joanne Cassidy. Due to the complex nature of the work, Richard felt that it was impossible to apportion the tasks equally. He believed that only Carole had the necessary commitment and expertise to be able to cope well with the increased workload.

Carole Devlin was a committed and conscientious worker. She had been with the organisation for some 10 years. She was not a ‘clock-watcher’ by nature, and genuinely liked to please everyone by doing as much as she could to ensure that no- one could criticise the quality of her input. Richard’s decision to ask Carole to take on the major portion of workload was, at first, viewed as a compliment, especially when he explained to her that only she was able to carry out such important organisational functions for him.

Within a month of taking on the extra workload, Carole was experiencing several problems which she could not have foreseen. For instance, as a Team Leader, Carole had never been asked to attend seminars as an ambassador of Faboil, nor had she been asked to negotiate with experienced staff and suppliers over the organisation’s product range. Many demands were being made on her time, both internally and externally, and she was severely constrained by her inability to understand the differences between her responsibilities and accountabilities to Richard and the other Directors. On several occasions, Carole had made decisions which had to be changed due to lack of information and communication from other stakeholders.

The other two Team Leaders seemed to be coping better than Carole. Joanne had made it quite clear from the start that she had no intention of working late in the evenings as this would mean giving up her golf medal matches, which were

important to her, so that she could maintain her low handicap. Ian, on the other hand, had a wife who did not keep very well, and also a young family who required to be taken by car to evening activities. Both Joanne and Ian sympathised with Carole’s situation, and told her that she should tell Richard Cranberry that she could not cope. However, Carole did not really want to admit that she was unable to cope.

After further thought, Carole took their advice and made an appointment to speak to Richard, but on the day of the meeting Richard went off on long-term sick. Carole had a quick word with the HR Manager, Colin Meed, about the situation. Instead of relieving her, he asked her to do a ‘holding operation’ until Richard’s return

This ‘holding operation’ resulted in Carole having to work late each evening to clear the paperwork. The paperwork was not so much urgent, as ‘bitty’; also staff kept leaving post-it notes and documents with queries written on them, all over her desk. One evening, she discovered through a chance conversation with an administrator, that both Joanne and Ian had taken to leaving work early. The following day also, just by chance, she overheard Joanne talking about the content of the Masters Degree which she had recently studied. It appeared that Joanne’s specialism was network analysis, used in planning and controlling of component parts for complex projects, and for scheduling product resources. This was one of the most difficult and time- consuming tasks that she had taken over from Richard, in the belief that only she was able to undertake these tasks! Carole became disillusioned and angry with Richard and Joanne.

The following day, she decided to confront Joanne to ask her to take over the

network analysis, but Joanne refused to take on this additional workload. Some bitter words were exchanged which drove a wedge between them. Joanne felt that she had nothing to rebuke herself about since she was carrying out what Richard asked of

her. Carole, on the other hand, believed that Joanne should take over the work, from a moral point of view if nothing else! Ian wanted nothing to do with the situation and made sympathetic noises to both of them. Fortunately for Richard, he was still off work, otherwise he would have been subjected to Carole’s anger.

Carole, by now, was feeling stressed and could not work effectively with Joanne or Ian. Joanne had also been off work on two occasions in the last week, supposedly suffering from a migraine and stomach bug. Carole was also experiencing recurrent headaches, which she put down to tiredness and too many glasses of wine, which she had to help her unwind when she eventually got home in the evening. The diet of microwave ready meals was not helping, and she felt angry because she had cancelled several nights out with friends.

Carole blamed everyone for the current situation.

Assessment task (conventional)

Candidate Instructions

Reflecting on examples from the attached case study (Faboil Ltd) and also from your own individual investigation, research and experience, please consider the two Outcomes of this Unit:

¨  Analyse approaches to leadership.

¨  Analyse team leadership.

In order to cover both Outcomes, your submitted work must include answers that are reflective, clearly written and address the following seven questions:

1 Explain and give examples of the differences between management and leadership in organisations, describing appropriate behaviours and skills that should be demonstrated.

2 Explain the importance of vision and goals for an organisation.

3 Identify and give examples of four different leadership approaches that are appropriate for different work situations and people.

4 Using an appropriate model and work example, analyse one valid factor that may influence the team development of a particular team.

5 Analyse the usefulness of the methods used to motivate and support team members.

6 Explain the team objectives of a particular team, and the individual objectives of two team members. Your response should show how well team and individuals’ objectives fit together.

7 Analyse how team activities are planned and controlled.

For success in this Unit, you must display theoretical knowledge and an ability to apply this to a particular organisational situation, whilst drawing on current examples from business and commerce. Thus Faboil Ltd will, for some areas, provide a good starting point for reflection and analysis.

It is recommended that your total response is in the region of 1500–2000 words. You should submit your response by the deadline given by your teacher/lecturer

If you are having any difficulties, please approach your tutor who will provide support and advice to assist you to successfully complete this assessment task.


100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
Tailored to your instructions


International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120


100% Pass Guarantee

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

corona virus stop
FLAT 25% OFF ON EVERY ORDER.Use "FLAT25" as your promo code during checkout