OBHR Comparative Case Study (
2
0%)
Individual assignment
Due: Week
1
1, Tuesday, Sep 17 12:00 noon PDT
Prepare a 1500-word comparative case study. Adhere to the following format while preparing the case study.
· Choose two well-documented case studies of different organizations.
· One case study should be based on success stories, For Example, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
· Another case study should focus on organizational failure/project failure etc. For Example, Blueberry, Nokia, and Yahoo.
· Analyze the organizational structure and culture of both organizations.
· What is the mode of communication adopted by both organizations? How do employees interact with each other?
· What kind of leadership style do these organizations prefer/follow? What is the management style of both organizations?
· Explain how the organizational culture, structure, and management style effects/relates to the success and failure of the organization?
· What are the HR Strategic planning, recruitment, and selection strategy, and performance/ talent management strategy of both the organizations?
· Based on the analysis performed propose suggestions and recommendations (5-6) based on the OBHR concepts learned in the course for both organizations.
Report Requirements
· The report must include a
title page, table of contents, introduction, multiple supporting body paragraphs, conclusion, and
list of references.
· Students must use a minimum of 10 references. All references must come from peer-reviewed academic journals (UCW University Library); additional references may be from trade and practitioner publications or online search engines.
· Students must use APA format when citing literature.
· Students are encouraged to use Grammarly to avoid plagiarism. If plagiarism is identified in the paper, the student will receive a zero for the assignment.
· Do not exceed the word limit. Marks will be deducted for excessive length.
APA writing conventions should be followed in the report with a minimum of ten (10) sources referenced and cited including in-text citations (if you are presenting another author’s ideas in your own language you still have to provide the in-text citation of that author), references in APA format, the report must demonstrate analysis of the material and its application to the workplace. The title of the company cannot be your report title due to copyright reasons.
The submission date is mentioned in the course schedule (i.e., week 11) in the course syllabus. All submissions will be made on Moodle.
Please note that assignment submissions are ONLY accepted on Moodle and NOT on email. Kindly rename your assignment file by your respective name before you upload it. For example, if John Smith is submitting his assignment file name should be “Johnsmith”.
The report will be graded from
20% as per the rubric mentioned below.
Appendix – A
Assessment Rubric for OBHR Comparative Case Study
|
1- 4 Scale |
|
1 | 2 |
3 |
4 | |||||
|
Percentage Score |
Weight |
0-59 |
60-67 |
68-71 |
72-75 |
76-79 |
80-84 |
85-89 |
90-100 |
|
|
Grades |
F |
C |
B- |
B |
B+ |
A- |
A |
A+ |
||
|
Mastery Level |
Beginning |
Developing |
Competent |
Mastery |
||||||
|
Standard Level |
Below Standard |
Approaching Standard |
At Standard |
Exceeds Standard |
||||||
|
Executive Summary/ |
5 |
Executive summary or Abstract missing or poorly constructed |
Executive summary or Abstract inadequate |
Executive Summary or Abstract Executed Adequately |
Executive Summary or Abstract Executed in Superior Fashion |
|||||
|
Problem Identification & Scope |
10 |
Shows little understanding of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues. |
Shows some understanding of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues. |
Shows adequate knowledge of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues. |
Shows superior knowledge of the issues, key problems, and the company’s present situation and strategic issues. |
|||||
|
Content |
Does not address the case question with little relevant evidence (e.g., details, examples, facts, and expert opinions) Central idea and clarity of purpose are absent or incompletely expressed and maintained Lacks most of the necessary case parts Does not comment on (/evaluate) the differences |
Not all the major similarities and/or differences have been a (e.g., details, examples, facts, and expert opinions) Includes only a few of the necessary case parts Central idea and clarity of purpose are expressed though perhaps too vaguely or broadly Only minimally comments on (/evaluates) the differences |
Generally, addresses the case question by providing most major similarities and/or differences but loses focus at times by focusing on minor details Uses a few details, examples, facts, and expert opinions to elaborate on similarities and/or differences Includes most of the necessary case parts Comments on (/evaluates) some of the differences |
Addresses the case question by providing all major similarities and/or differences Uses some details, examples, facts, and expert opinions) to elaborate on the similarities and/or differences Includes all the case parts Comments on (/evaluates) the differences |
||||||
|
Case Analysis |
15 |
Analysis of case poor analysis of issues of the case, supporting detail is incorrect or missing. No use of material from the textbook and course. |
Analysis of case shows inadequate levels of analysis of issues of the case, provides little supporting detail. Some material from the textbook and course was used. |
Analysis of case shows adequate levels of analysis of issues of the case and provides supporting details. Good use of material from the textbook and course. |
Analysis of case shows superior levels of analysis of underlying issues that are not necessarily readily apparent and uses appropriate levels of supporting detail. Substantial use of material from the textbook, library, and course. |
|||||
|
Recommendation and Conclusions |
Recommendations and/or plans of action provided that are mostly incorrect or absent. No use of material from the textbook and course. |
Recommendations and/or plans of action provided that are partially correct, alternate viewpoints not considered. Some material from the textbook and course was used. |
Specific recommendations and/or plans of action provided that are substantially correct, alternate viewpoints may be considered. Good use of material from the textbook and course. |
Specific recommendations and/or plans of action provided that go beyond the expected scope of the case are fully supported by data, and alternate viewpoints are fully considered. Substantial use of material from the textbook, library, and course. |
||||||
|
Organization & Critical Thinking |
||||||||||
|
Coherence, Cohesion, organization, demonstration of thought process, analysis of the problem using own thoughts and ideas |
20 |
Similarities and differences have been clearly organized using either the block or thematic method. A very clear relationship between ideas Accurate use of connectors Accurate use of pronouns Clear match between the topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentence in each body paragraph |
Similarities and differences are organized generally clearly using the block or thematic method but one of the paragraphs may cover more than one main idea Generally clear relationship between ideas Mostly correct use of connectors. Mostly correct use of pronouns The topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentence (if any) support one main idea. |
|||||||
|
Style & Mechanics |
||||||||||
|
APA |
7th Ed. APA Manual is not followed or there are significant errors in: |
7th Ed. APA Manual is followed with significant errors in: |
7th Ed. APA Manual is followed with minor errors in: |
7th Ed. APA Manual is followed with no errors including: |
||||||
|
Grammar/Punctuation/Spelling |
Grammar and sentence structure has major problems following standard English rules and reads with difficulty with major errors in punctuation and spelling |
Grammar and sentence structure has problems following standard English rules and reads with some difficulty with errors in punctuation and spelling |
Grammar and sentence structure mostly follows standard English rules and reads reasonably well with few errors in punctuation and spelling |
Grammar and sentence structure follow standard English rules and read well with excellent punctuation and spelling |
||||||
|
Readability & Style |
Sentences are lacking in completeness, clearness, and conciseness and are not well-structured. |
Sentences need to be more complete, clear, concise, and well-constructed. |
Sentences are mostly complete, clear, concise, and well-constructed. |
Sentences are consistently complete, clear, concise, and well-constructed with strong, varied structure. |
||||||
|
Marks |
100 |
Additional Comments |
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY
ASSIGNMENT
by Irfan Qureshi Mohammed
Submission date:
1
8-Sep-2022 11:
4
1AM (UTC-0
7
00)
Submission ID:
19
02
6
25087
File name:
77367_Irfan_Qureshi_Mohammed_COMPARATIVE_CASE_STUDY_ASSIGNMENT_
18
53003_1172963207 x
(28.2K)
Word count: 185
4
Character count: 11402
1
16
1
1
1
1
14
17
1
8
1
6
1
1
1
3
7
1
1
8
9
13
15
1
2
2
10
19
4
4
5
5
11
12 12
4
40%
SIMILARITY INDEX
10%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
38%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 16%
2 4%
3 3%
4 3%
5 2%
6 1%
7 1%
8 1%
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to University Canada West
Student Paper
Submitted to Southern New Hampshire
University – Continuing Education
Student Paper
Submitted to The Brooke House Sixth Form
College
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Nottingham
Student Paper
Submitted to Aalto Yliopisto
Student Paper
Submitted to Higher Education Commission
Pakistan
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Denver
Student Paper
Submitted to Nexford Learning Solutions
Student Paper
9 1%
10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
13 1%
14 1%
15 1%
16 1%
17 1%
18 <1%
19 <1%
Submitted to St Dominic’s Sixth Form College
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Wales, Lampeter
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Bedfordshire
Student Paper
Submitted to Ho Chi Minh City University of
Foreign Languages and Information
Technology
Student Paper
ijebe.feb.unila.ac.id
Internet Source
www.investopedia.com
Internet Source
www.asjp.cerist.dz
Internet Source
Submitted to Bridgepoint Education
Student Paper
Submitted to Wellspring Learning Community
Student Paper
Submitted to Iowa Community College Online
Consortium
Student Paper
www.nokia.com
Internet Source
Exclude quotes On
Exclude bibliography On
Exclude matches Off
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read moreOur specialists are always online to help you! We are available 24/7 via live chat, WhatsApp, and phone to answer questions, correct mistakes, or just address your academic fears.
See our T&Cs