MGT6138 – Leading Leaders

Assessment #3 – Translating your stand into leadership

This document provides you with information about the requirements for your assessment. Detailed instructions and resources are included for completing the task. The rubric that markers use to grade the assessment task is included.

Task Overview

Course Learning Outcomes Addressed

• CLO1: Critically reflect upon the practical value of adaptive leadership and behavioural leadership theories in modern context and digital business environments
• CLO2: Explain how inter-cultural competence, trust, and leader behaviours impact on the experiences of their followers
• CLO3: Discuss a variety of contemporary leadership demands and expectations arising in response to dynamic forces in the modern world
• CLO4: Choose and apply leadership knowledge to mitigate a leadership problem
• CLO5: Showcase leader professionalism by delivering an oral presentation in relation to an identified topic form the rouse to a relevant audience

Task Description

In a 15 minute recorded presentation, you will demonstrate how the stand you have taken on a particular issue in Assessment 2 translates into leadership.

Task Details

Your recorded presentation should address how:

• As an organisational leader, how does your positioning of your chosen issue translate back into leadership in a practical, demonstratable sense. For example, if you have taken a stand on gender and equality, how would that translate back into leadership practices generally and at an individual organisational level.

Your recorded presentation should also:

• Restate succinctly the issue you are taking a stand on and why (no more that 2-3 minutes at the start of the presentation). Be clear to the target audience the stand you are taking, why, and how this impacts leadership. Do not assume your audience have read your Assessment 2.
• Contain a maximum of 12 PowerPoint slides.
• Show your professionalism as a leader.
• Be pitched to an executive audience.
• Contain references where appropriate.

Due Date

Please see StudyDesk (Assessment tab) for the due date.

Task Snapshot

• Length: 15 minutes of recorded presentation
• Weighting: 40%
• Marks/ Mark Allocation: 100
• Individual or Group: This is an individual assessment. One submission per student is required.
• How will I be assessed: Rubric

Acceptable AI Use

Level: 1 AI Assisted Structure Checking
You may use AI tools to organise and check the structure and flow of your assessment item. This includes grammar checks, coherence, and flow of arguments. Use is limited to the reorganisation of text which you have written.

Indicate the AI tool(s) used for structure checking at the beginning of the assessment item and include the prompts you have used. Save copies of your drafts and content before/after AI was used, to produce upon request.

Submission Information

Resources to Complete Task

Please see your StudyDesk for content and stimuli.

Referencing/Citations

All referencing needs to follow the Harvard referencing style.

Submission Instructions

What you need to submit:

1. Submit one video file of your recorded presentation in the Panopto assessment folder. You can access this folder on the submission portal for this assessment.
2. Submit your PowerPoint presentation file in the submission portal.

Turnitin

Turnitin is a detection software and text matching tool used in this course. Plagiarism checking is automatically done when you submit your assignment. An originality/similarity report is automatically created which checks the originality of your assignment. You can access and review the report.

NOTE:

• It may take up to 24 hours for a report to be issued from Turnitin.
• When the assignment has been checked, you will see a notice in the Files submission area.
• The percentage mark given indicates the amount of text matched against the Turnitin Database. It is merely an indicator that should always be reviewed to identify where Turnitin have picked up potential plagiarism.
• You may have the option to edit submission or the option to submit assignment, this is determined by your lecturer.
• Once you submit assignment you are no longer able to edit it.

Moderation (Optional)

All staff who are assessing your work meet to discuss and compare their judgements before marks or grades are finalised.

Assessment Policies & Procedures

Information and links regarding USQ’s assessment policy/ procedure; extensions and late submissions; academic integrity & misconduct and marking are found on your course StudyDesk Assessment page.

Note on Late submission & extensions: Applications for an extension of time will only be considered if received in accordance with the USQ Assessment procedure and the Assessment of Compassionate and Compelling Circumstances Procedure. Refer to the links on StudyDesk for copies of these procedures.

Academic Integrity

Your time at University is an opportunity to develop the knowledge and the skills you will need to succeed in your chosen profession. Academic integrity is essential in ensuring the quality of your education and development. Academic Integrity means acting with the values of honesty, trust, fairness and respect in learning, teaching and research. It celebrates the genuine achievements made by yourself and your peers.

Breaches of academic integrity undermine your development and the ability of you to work at the level needed after you graduate. Academic Misconduct includes but is not limited to Plagiarism, Collusion, Cheating and Contract Cheating, Impersonation, Misrepresentation and Falsification, Self-Plagiarism and Solicitation.

To help maintain the integrity of your work within your degree, USQ has sophisticated detection systems that monitor all assessment for indicators of academic misconduct. When you submit an assessment item, all the details are recorded and can be referred to if we suspect academic misconduct has occurred. Penalties may be applied retrospectively in circumstances where a breach is identified after completion of a course.

IMPORTANT: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Many websites and apps use artificial intelligence to generate or paraphrase material. Tools like ChatGPT, GrammarlyGo and Quillbot may only be used in assessments when you have been given explicit approval from your course coordinator to do so. Unless you receive explicit, written approval, you may not submit any work that was not written or created by yourself, because this constitutes academic misconduct.

We understand that when you take on a university study program, you might be in a time poor, high-pressure situation. From time to time the temptation might be there to take short cuts that lead to instances of academic misconduct.

If you are ever feeling pressured or the temptation to submit work that is not your own arises, avoid it. Instead, get the free support you need from UniSQ. Contact your Course Examiner, iconnect or your Library Learning Advisor for free support.

Assessment Rubric

Criteria

High Distinction (100 – 85)

Distinction (84 – 75)

Credit (74 – 65)

Pass (65 – 50)

Fail (49 – 0)

Justification
/30 Marks

There is highly astute selection and justification of the stance taken.
There are strong connections to theory, supported by highly relevant independent research.

There is astute justification of the stance taken.
There are connections to theory and evidence of independent research.

There is fair justification of the stance taken.
There are some connections to theory and evidence of independent research.

There is some justification of the stance taken.
There is evidence of a developing understanding.
Attempts have been made to make connections to theory, but it is limited. Some evidence of supporting independent research.

There is poor justification of the stance taken.
There are minimal or no connections to theory, and no inclusion of independent research.

Analysis
/30 Marks

There are clear, relevant and comprehensive links between the justification of the stance taken and the analysis of relevant issue.

There are clear, relevant and comprehensive links between the justification of the stance taken, and the analysis of relevant issues, with only some omissions or lapses in linkages.

The links between the justification of the stance taken and the analysis of relevant issue are usually clear, although in some instances these linkages need further fleshing out.

There is some evidence of linkages between the justification of the stance taken and the analysis of relevant issues, but this was sometimes hard to discern or irrelevant.

There are few or no links between the justification of the stance taken and the analysis of relevant issues.

Delivery
/20 Marks

Presenter delivers an engaging, comprehensive yet succinct message on the (1) issue, (2) theory/practice, and (3) implications, adeptly using relevant literature to illuminate points and applying theory.

Presenter delivers a comprehensive yet succinct message on the (1) issue, (2) theory/practice (3) implications, with regular reference to literature and theory.

Presenter delivers for the most part a comprehensive message about the (1) issue, (2) theory/practice (3) implications.

Presenter delivers rudimentary messages on the (1) issue, (2) theory/practice (3) implications.

Presenter delivers underdeveloped messages on the (1) issue, (2) theory/practice (3) implications are inaccurate or incomplete.

Insight
/20 Marks

Listeners gain a couple of significant insights. Listener can easily follow line of reasoning without confusion or distraction.

Listeners gain at least one significant insight. Listener can follow line of reasoning with limited effort.

Occasionally refers to relevant literature or theory. Listeners gain several significant insights.

A couple of references to literature and theory that could be more clearly integrated into the discussion. Limited reference to literature and theory. Listeners are likely to gain marginal insights from the presentation.