Weight: 40% | Due: Midnight Sunday Week 6 | Limit: 1600 words (approx. 400 words each per Parts A, B, C and D) | Submission: Moodle Assignment

Referencing: Harvard (Cite Them Right). Cite all sources. If GenAI is used, cite it and include transcript.

Task overview (choose one leader, for one coherent study)

Choose one business leader you admire/respect from any of the business sectors explored in Assessments 1 and 2 or other sectors e.g. sports promotion, not-for-profit social enterprize, arts/entertainment.

Check that leadership decisions and communication can be evidenced from journal articles, business newspapers and magazines, annual reports, interviews, documentaries and the leader’s social media.

You will write a concise leadership study in four parts:

Part A — Apply two leadership theories in a dynamic/dispersed context (400 words)

Select two (2) leadership theories covered in Topic 8 (Fielders contingency theory and contingency theory, Fred’s theory) and analyse how those theories explain (or could improve) the way your chosen leader leads in a dynamic (fast-changing) and dispersed (distributed/complex e.g virtual teams, multiple branches or locations) context.

In your 200 words, do all of the following:

1. Define and explain the leader’s context as dynamic + dispersed (1–2 paragraphs).
2. Apply Theory 1 to explain a leadership behaviour or decision.
3. Apply Theory 2 to explain a leadership behaviour or decision.
4. Note a limitation or “fit issue” for at least one theory (1 sentence).

Part B — Leadership communication skills to manage and influence people (400 words)

Using the same two theories, describe how your chosen leader can foster effective organisational communication and dialogue to lead and manage people effectively in that leader’s context.

Minimum inclusions:

• Identify 2–3 communication skills/practices relevant to the business  context (e.g., channel choice, feedback, active listening, managing barriers/noise).

Explain how each chosen leadership theory supports (or undermines) those communication practices.

Part C — New models of leadership and management and implications for organizational structure/design (400 words)

Explore and discuss at least two (2) new models of leadership and management not covered in Topic 9: Leadership, and explain how these models could improve the

organisational structure/design and outcomes such as employee performance and adaptability to change.

Do not use: Trait theory; Path–Goal theory; Hersey–Blanchard Situational theory; Vroom–Yetton leader-participation model; Strategic leadership; Transformational or Charismatic – these are covered in Topic 9.

Approved “new model” options (choose any two)

Pick any two new models of leadership from this list below – or propose another contemporary model not covered in Topic 9 but it must be justified with academic evidence:

1. Servant leadership
2. Authentic leadership
3. Ethical leadership
4. Inclusive leadership
5. Shared leadership
6. Distributed leadership
7. Complexity leadership
8. Adaptive leadership
9. Digital/e-leadership (leading via digital platforms/remote teams)
10. Agile leadership / agile management
11. Holacracy / self-managing organisations
12. Sociocracy / consent-based governance
13. Teal organisations (evolutionary purpose + self-management)
14. Lean leadership
15. Transformational followership / leader–follower co-production

1. Responsible leadership / stakeholder leadership
2. Paradox leadership (managing competing demands)
3. Systems leadership (cross-boundary, multi-stakeholder)

Requirements:

1. selecting a model not on the list: you must justify that it is not covered in Topic 9 and support your choice with academic evidence.
2. make the structure/design link explicit (e.g., cross-functional teams, virtual teams, flatter structures (non-hierarchic), decision rights, transparent governance, feedback loops, performance standards).

In Topic 12: Controlling, the slides explaining key concepts can help you describe actual examples of performance and adaptability.

Part D — Personal reflection on preferred leadership style (400 words)

Based on your chosen leader and your two theories, explain:

1. What 2 leadership attributes, characteristics or behaviours would you would aim to copy, and why?
2. What leadership behaviour(s) would you avoid and why?  
3. What you will aim to improve if /or next time you have an opportunity to lead a team: 1 specific aim/goal + 2 actions, and how you’ll know it improved.

Important:

• Write your reflection in the context of leading a small team or leading independently on a task where you are accountable for outcomes.

4) Where each SLO is assessed

Assessment 3 is mapped to SLOs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.

Subject Learning Outcome	Where it is explicitly required in the rewritten task	What to look for in student work (evidence)
SLO1 Relate theory/practice to dynamic and dispersed organisations	Part A (dynamic/dispersed context and theory application)	Clear definition of dynamic/dispersed context; theory-to-practice application tied to real decisions/behaviours

Subject Learning Outcome	Where it is explicitly required in the rewritten task	What to look for in student work (evidence)
SLO2 Foster organisational dialogue to lead/manage people	Part B (communication and dialogue skills via theories)	Communication/dialogue practices named and justified; explicit link between leadership approach and dialogue/communication effectiveness
SLO3 Examine new models as structural options	Part C (two new models plus structure/design plus performance/adaptability)	Two models explained with evidence; clear structural implications; outcomes framed (performance/adaptability)
SLO5 Reflect on own leadership style/approaches	Part D (personal reflection)	A clear statement of the student’s own leadership style/approach, supported by brief justification (e.g., what they tend to do, strengths/limitations, and what they learnt from analysing the leader and theories).
SLO6 Apply leadership skills in small-team and independent contexts	Part D (future team leadership planning)	A specific, feasible plan for leading a small team (or leading independently): one improvement goal plus practical actions to apply the theories in a future scenario.

Assessment 3 Rubric (Total = 80 marks; divide by 2 for LMS /40)

Criterion (Marks)	Mastery (HD)	Proficient (D)	Developing (C)	Emerging (P)	Need Improvement (F/FO)
1. Part A – Dynamic/dispersed context + two leadership theories applied (16)	14–16: Precisely defines dynamic + dispersed context. Applies two taught leadership theories to specific leader behaviours/decisions . Includes a clear limitation/fit issue. Analysis is succinct, convincing and clearly theory-to-practice.	12–13: Clear definition of context. Two theories are applied to practice with strong links to behaviours/decision s. Limitation/fit issue is noted. Minor gaps in depth or precision.	10–11: Context described but not sharply dynamic/dispers ed. Theories are used with some application but partially descriptive. Limitation is weak or implied.	8–G: Basic description of leader/context. Theory use is largely descriptive with limited application to behaviours/decisi ons. Dynamic/disperse d framing is minimal.	0–7: Minimal/incorrect theory use. Little or no application. Context unclear. Major misunderstandings and/or missing requirements.
2. Part B – Organisational communication and dialogue via theories (14)	12–14: Identifies relevant communication/dial ogue practices (e.g., channel choice, feedback, active listening, barriers/noise). Analytically links	11: Practices are relevant and clearly explained. Theory links mostly strong with some evaluation of effectiveness. Minor	G–10: Practices are named and explained. Links to theory are uneven and tend toward description	7–8: Generic communication statements. Weak or unclear links to theory. Limited relevance to managing people in context.	0–6: Little/no relevant communication/dial ogue content. Theories not used meaningfully. Requirement not met.

Criterion (Marks)	Mastery (HD)	Proficient (D)	Developing (C)	Emerging (P)	Need Improvement (F/FO)
	these to both theories (supports/undermine s). Shows clear relevance to leading/managing people in context.	gaps in depth or dialogue framing.	rather than evaluation.
3. Part C – Two new models as structural options (structure/design + performance/adaptab ility) (16)	14–16: Selects two new models not covered in the taught leadership topic and explains them accurately. Explicitly links each model to structure/design mechanisms (e.g., decision rights, governance rhythms, team structures, workflows) and convincingly connects to	12–13: Two suitable models chosen. Clear structure/design link and outcomes discussion. Evidence is appropriate; analysis slightly less explicit in mechanisms/outco mes.	10–11: Models described adequately. Structure/design links present but general. Outcomes asserted more than argued. Evidence limited or uneven.	8–G: Models named but shallow. Weak structural link and vague outcomes. Limited evidence and/or unclear “newness”.	0–7: Incorrect/inappropria te models and/or overlaps with taught leadership topic. Little/no structural analysis. Missing requirements or major misunderstandings.

Criterion (Marks)	Mastery (HD)	Proficient (D)	Developing (C)	Emerging (P)	Need Improvement (F/FO)
	performance/adapta-bility outcomes. Strong evidence use.
4. Part D – Personal reflection on leadership style/approach + small- team/independent application plan (14)	12–14: Clearly articulates what choices reveal about own leadership style/approach (strengths/limitation s). Provides a specific improvement goal plus practical actions and how improvement will be evaluated. Explicitly framed for small-team and/or independent leadership.	11: Clear reflection with insight. Improvement goal/actions practical. Evaluation of improvement present but less explicit. Strong overall linkage to theories/learning.	G–10: Reflection present but limited depth. Improvement goal/actions exist but may be generic. Weaker linkage to theories and/or small team /independent framing.	7–8: Minimal reflection on style/approach. Actions vague. Limited evidence of insight or application planning.	0–6: Reflection missing or purely descriptive. No feasible plan/actions. Requirements not met.
5. Research quality and use of evidence (10)	G–10: High-quality, credible sources. Evidence is	8: Good sources and generally well used. Minor over-reliance	7: Adequate sources but limited	5–6: Minimal sources and/or questionable	0–4: Little/no research. Unreliable sources. No

Criterion (Marks)	Mastery (HD)	Proficient (D)	Developing (C)	Emerging (P)	Need Improvement (F/FO)
	integrated to support claims across Parts A–D. Demonstrates strong judgement in selecting and using sources to support analysis.	on non-academic sources or uneven integration.	depth/quality. Evidence used inconsistently or mostly appended rather than integrated.	credibility. Weak support for claims.	meaningful evidence base.
6. Academic writing, structure, and referencing (Harvard) + integrity/format compliance (10)	G–10: Excellent clarity and academic tone. Follows required structure and word control. Harvard referencing accurate and consistent. Integrity/format requirements met (including GenAI citation/transcript if used; visuals referenced if used).	8: Clear writing and structure. Minor referencing errors. Requirements mostly met.	7: Generally readable. Structure adequate but uneven. Referencing inconsistencies and/or clarity issues.	5–6: Frequent writing/structure issues. Referencing weak or inconsistent. Presentation undermines meaning.	0–4: Poor clarity/organisation. Referencing absent/seriously incorrect. Integrity/format requirements not met.

Please note that the final score out of 80 will be halved for entry into the LMS out of 40.

Assessment 3: Leadership Study