Managing Diversity in the Workplace
Managing Diversity in the Workplace
Instructions on Assessment:
You are required to submit a 3000 word portfolio of learning that includes:
- a critical discussion, focusing on up to 2 of the protected characteristics studied, that critically evaluates the impact of managing diversity on individuals and organisations, including an individual reflection on your key learning throughout the module sessions
Areas to consider and guiding questions to be addressed in your discussion:
Current research, debates, theories and models
Critically discussing relevant academic literature, what are the issues and challenges with regards to the protected characteristic(s) for individuals and organisations?
Organizational strategies and policies
How does managing diversity, related to your chosen protected characteristic(s), manifest in workplaces? What may be considered best practice?
The impact on individual and organizational performance
Critically evaluate such practice and the impact on the individual and organisational performance. Is it all about performance?
The legal framework context
What role does the law and the legal framework play with regards to diversity at the workplace? Can you give some example(s) to illustrate this in relation to your chosen characteristic(s)?
Recommendations and conclusion
What feasible recommendations for workplaces based on evidence, can you highlight to facilitate diversity (in regards to your chosen characteristic(s), in the workplace?
Guiding themes for your individual reflection of learning
What were the main areas of discussion(s) in seminars?
How do you position yourself in regards to these?
Was there anything that surprised you about the topic?
Did you find it easy/difficult to discuss this topic? Why?
Module Specific Assessment Criteria
| Performance Area
Discussion (70%) |
Does Not Meet Standards | Meets Standards
|
Exceeds Standards | ||||||
| 0-29% | 30-39% | 40-49% | 50-59% | 60-69% | 70-79% | 80-89% | 90-100% | ||
| Critical literature review on chosen characteristic(s) | Review of literature is completely insufficient. Showing no understanding of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace. | Shows little/ limited understanding and review of relevant literature, current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace.
|
Adequate review of literature that shows some descriptive understanding of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace.
|
Good critically review of relevant literature, but largely descriptive. Showing good understanding and at times good critical discussion of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace. | A very good critical review of relevant literature throughout. Showing very good critical discussion and understanding of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace. | An excellent critical review of a range of relevant quality literature throughout. Showing an excellent critical discussion and understanding of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace across all characteristic(s) in focus. | An outstanding critical review of a wide range of relevant quality literature throughout. Showing strong critical discussion and understanding of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace across all characteristic(s) in focus. | An exemplary critical review of a wide range of relevant quality literature throughout. Showing exemplary critical discussion and integration across all characteristic(s) in focus. Demonstrates an exemplary understanding of current research, debates, theories or models regarding the issues and challenges for individuals and organisations in the workplace. | |
| Evaluation of organizational strategies and policies | Completely insufficient evaluation. Little or no identification OR discussion of organizational practices. | Insufficient evaluation. Limited identification OR discussion of organizational practices. | Adequate evaluation. Some identification of organizational practices. Text is descriptive and lacks critical evaluation. | Good evaluation. Organizational practices are identified and supported by relevant evidence/ literature. Text largely descriptive but at times shows some good critical evaluation. | Very good evaluation. Organizational practices are identified and supported by a range of relevant evidence/ literature. Text demonstrates critical evaluation throughout.
|
Excellent evaluation. Organizational practices are identified and supported by a range of quality evidence/ literature. Text demonstrates excellent critical evaluation throughout and across all focus characteristic(s).
|
Outstanding evaluation. Organizational practices are identified and supported by a wide range of quality evidence/ literature. Evaluation conveys a clear critical argument at a high level throughout and across all focus characteristic(s). | Exemplary evaluation. Organizational practices are identified and supported by a wide range of quality evidence/ literature. Evaluation conveys a clear critical argument that integrates all focus characteristic(s) at a high level of debate. | |
| Discussion of impact on individual and organizational performance | Completely insufficient discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance. | Insufficient. Limited discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance. | Adequate discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance supported by some evidence/ literature. | Good discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance supported by relevant evidence/ literature. Demonstrates some good critical discussion. | Very good discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance supported by a range of relevant evidence/ literature. Demonstrates critical discussion throughout. | Excellent discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance supported by a range of quality evidence/ literature. Demonstrates excellent critical discussion throughout. | Outstanding discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance supported by a wide range of quality evidence/ literature. Demonstrates a clear critical argument at a high level throughout. | Exemplary discussion on the impact of managing diversity on the individual and organisational performance supported by a wide range of quality evidence/ literature. Demonstrates a clear convincing critical argument at a high level of debate.
|
|
| The legal framework context | Completely insufficient. Little or no integration of the role of the legal framework. | Insufficient. Limited integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity. | Adequate integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity supported by some evidence/ literature. | Good integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity supported by relevant evidence/ literature. | Very good integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity supported by a range of relevant evidence/ literature considering international context. | Excellent integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity supported by a range of quality evidence/ literature throughout and across all focus characteristic(s) in an international context.
|
Outstanding integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity supported by a wide range of quality evidence/ literature throughout and across all focus characteristic(s) in an international context.
|
Exemplary integration of the role of the legal framework in regards to managing diversity supported by a wide range of quality evidence/ literature throughout and across all focus characteristic(s) ) in an international context.
|
|
| Recommendations and conclusion | Little or no evidence of feasible recommendations and/ or conclusive remarks. | Limited evidence of feasible recommendations and/ or conclusive remarks. | Adequate recommendations based on some evidence and adequate conclusive remarks. | Good recommendations based on some evidence that identify some feasible approaches for workplaces to facilitate diversity and good conclusive remarks reflective of the discussion in the text. | Very good recommendations based on quality evidence that identify feasible approaches for workplaces to facilitate diversity. Very good conclusive remarks, very well integrated with the discussion of the report. | Excellent and relevant recommendations based on a range of quality evidence that identify feasible approaches for workplaces to facilitate diversity. Excellent, clear conclusive remarks, very well integrated with the discussion of the report. | Strong recommendations based on a wide range of quality evidence that identify feasible, detailed approaches for workplaces to facilitate diversity. Outstanding, clear conclusive remarks that integrate the discussion of the report to a high standard. | Exemplary recommendations based on a wide range of quality evidence that clearly identify feasible, detailed approaches for workplaces to facilitate diversity. Exemplary, clear conclusive remarks that integrate the discussion of the report to a very high standard.
|
|
| Structure, flow of argument and reference/ evidence quality | Presentation is completely insufficient. No clear outline and focus.
The text contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors. All of the text OR large sections are unsupported by references OR completely insufficient quality of references that are cited incorrectly.
|
Presentation is insufficient. Insufficient clarity of focus.
The text contains many spelling and grammatical errors. Limited referencing throughout and/ or references cited incorrectly. Insufficient quality of references/ evidence.
|
Presentation is adequate. Text identifies focus somewhat. Few spelling and grammatical errors throughout. References are mostly cited appropriately in compliance with APA style.
Adequate quality of references/ evidence. |
Good presentation throughout. Text clearly identifies focus. Spelling and grammar showing a good standard.
Good APA referencing throughout the text. Good quality of references/ evidence. Flow of argument could improve between sections. |
Very good presentation throughout. Text demonstrates very clear focus with very good flow of argument between sections, and a high standard of spelling and grammar. Very good APA referencing throughout the text.
Very good quality of references/ evidence throughout the text. |
Excellent presentation throughout. Text conveys clarity and purpose. Demonstrates high standard of spelling and grammar. An excellent standard of APA referencing throughout the text.
Excellent quality of references/ evidence throughout the text, showing excellent flow of argument throughout. |
Outstanding presentation throughout. Text conveys outstanding focus clarity and purpose. Demonstrates a high standard of spelling and grammar and a strong, convincing flow of argument. An excellent standard of APA referencing throughout the text.
Excellent range and quality of references/ evidence throughout the text. |
Exemplary presentation throughout. Text conveys a convincing focus clarity and purpose. Demonstrates an exceptionally high standard of spelling and grammar and a creative and convincing flow of argument. An excellent standard of APA referencing throughout the text.
Excellent wide range and quality of references/ evidence throughout the text. |
|
| Discussion | 0-20 | 21-27 | 28-34 | 35-41 | 42-48 | 49-55 | 56-62 | 63-70 | |
| Performance Area | Does Not Meet Standards | Meets Standards
|
Exceeds Standards | |||||
| 0-29% | 30-39% | 40-49% | 50-59% | 60-69% | 70-79% | 80-89% | 90-100% | |
| Reflection of learning
30%
|
Completely insufficient. Little or no reflection of learning. | Insufficient. Limited reflection of learning. | Adequate reflection of learning of some module sessions. In the majority descriptive and lacking reflection of own position. | Good reflection of learning. Some good reflection on own position in regards to module topics. Reflection still rather descriptive.. | Very good reflection of learning. Discusses own position to module topics across a number of sessions. | Excellent reflection of learning. Discusses own position to module topics across a number of sessions and integrates debates beyond module content. | Outstanding reflection of learning. Discusses own position to module topics across a number of sessions and integrates debates beyond module content to reflect on own position. | Exemplary reflection of learning. Discusses own position to module topics across a number of sessions and integrates debates beyond module content to critically reflect on own position. |
| Reflection of learning | 0-8 | 9-11 | 12-14 | 15-17 | 18-20 | 21-23 | 24-26 | 27-30 |
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!