Length: 2,000 words (+/-10%)

EASTS (online)

Alternative submission method

Task

Why is resistance to change frequently demonised as a problem that must be managed?

What are the ethical implications of this and how else can resistance be understood?

You may use examples from your own organisation to illustrate your essay.

1.Drawing on your subject material and wider reading from the academic literature, identify and examine why change is resisted, and why esistance is problematical as something to be managed.

2.From a critical perspective, examine the relationship between power and resistance in the context of organisational change. 3.Analyse the ethics of the managerial and of resistant positions.

4.Assess the implications of the managerial and of resistant positions for achieving an effective change management programme. 5.Draw conclusions that summarise your work and address the essay question.

You must follow an essay structure that is at a minimum an introduction; a main body that outlines the argument, analyses the material you have researched and assesses this according to the guidelines above, and a conclusion. Your writing style must follow professional literacy: Citations and a final reference list that follows the APA 6 guidelines accurately; the quality of writing and presentation: use of topic and linking sentences, and of connected paragraphs; accurate mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation etc.); use respectful language to discuss all people; avoid emotive language; employ inclusive, non-sexist language; not opinionated, i.e. support observations with evidence. A minimum of twelve appropriate citations/references should be used.

Rationale

The aims of this assessment task are:

LO 4 Identify, analyse and critically evaluate resistance to organisational change from a range of positions.

LO 5 Analyse and assess the ethical nature of organisational change.

LO 6 Assess an organisational change management programme and propose, justify and evaluate an alternative to this.

Marking criteria

WeightMarkGradeFail (F)Pass (P)Credit (C)Distinction (D)High Distinction (HD)

0% to 49%50% to 64%65% to 74%75% to 84%85% to 100%

EXPRESSION159.25P (+)Spelling, Syntax, Grammar & Flow is below an acceptable University level. Substandard use of language, syntax and mechanics. Remediation requiredAcceptable use of language, syntax and mechanics; revisions needed. Quotations used frequentlyDirect quotations used sparingly. Skilful use of language, syntax and mechanics; evidence of proofingParaphrased key comments and used direct quotations very sparingly Competent use of language, syntax and mechanics; a proofed submissionSuperior skill demonstrated. Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of direct quotations. Expertly presented in accordance with a high standard of scholarship. Excellence demonstrated and use of language, syntax and mechanics; very clean copy

CRITERIA3528.8P (++)Little application of theories and models to set task Critical analysis below standard or not evidentApplication of some theories and models to set task Critical analysis somewhat demonstratedApplication of theories and models relevant to set task Critical analysis demonstrated generallyCompetent application of relevant theories and models Considerable demonstration of critical analysisScholarly application of relevant theories and models Scholarly demonstration of critical analysis

ARGUMENT - EVIDENCE, CLARITY & EXPRESSION2012.8P (++)Argument, if evidenced, not developed or supported Substandard, or no merit to conclusion Case method not consultedArgument is not well developed and supported Conclusion evident Case method appears to have been consultedLogically developed argument supported by evidence Effective conclusion Use of case method apparentLogically developed argument clearly supported by evidence Comprehensive conclusion Skilful use of case methodLogical argument developed in a scholarly fashion supported by evidence Conclusion draws argument together in an influential and scholarly manner Competent use of case method

RELEVANCE & DEPTH2012.33P (+)Insufficient or unacceptable ranges of sources consulted Few or no key issues identifiedLimited use of sources of data Some key issues identifiedUsed a wide range of sources, most of which were relevant Most key issues identifiedScholarly use of a wide range of sources of data An acceptable number of key issues identifiedHighly proficient and evidence of rigour use of a wide range of relevant secondary sources All key issues expertly canvassed

PRESENTATION10Referencing is either insufficient or contains significant inaccuracies Quotations over-used and/or used when irrelevant Presentation inadequate with little regard for standards of scholarshipSome inaccuracies in use of correct referencing style Presentation expertly set out with some evidence of scholarshipReasonable skill in use of correct referencing style Presentation expertly set out with a notable standard of scholarshipSkill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style Presentation expertly set out with an acceptable standard of scholarshipSuperior skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of direct quotations Report expertly presented in accordance with a high standard of scholarship.