MOD009375 Cross Cultural Leadership & Human Capital Management CW Assessment 2026/27 | ARU

Assessment 

Coursework (Report)

Assessment code: 

010

Academic Year:

2026/2027

Trimester:

1

Module Title:

Cross Cultural Leadership & Human Capital Management

Module Code:

MOD009375

Level:

7

Module Leader:

Dr. Claire English

Weighting:

60%

Word Limit:

Not exceeding 3,000 words

This excludes the bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.89 of the Academic Regulations.

Assessed Learning Outcomes

Knowledge and Understanding:

LO1: Evaluate, synthesise, and apply leadership and management theory effectively in order to develop, manage and lead high-performing workforces. 

LO2: Analyse and evaluate the implication of external factors in the international business environment in order to mitigate risk and leverage maximum return from an organisation’s human capital

Artificial Intelligence

Category           

Category 2 - Independent Use of AI as a Research Tool

Submission Deadline:

Please refer to the VLE.

01- THEORY AND EVIDENCE

Use theory and empirical evidence to evaluate the challenges posed by technological disruption and other external factors on organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities, integrating insights from contemporary cross-cultural leadership approaches.

• Make sure you are drawing on relevant and innovative leadership theories
• Critically evaluate the impact of technological disruption on organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities from leadership and stakeholder management perspectives.
• Analyse the importance of cultivating distinctly human capabilities, including curiosity, empathy, and creativity, in navigating technological disruption through the lens of leadership and stakeholder management theories.
• Assess the impact of external factors such as globalisation, regulatory changes, and socio-political disruptions on organisational dynamics and human capital management strategies.

02- RECOMMENDATIONS

Provide innovative and actionable recommendations for leaders to cultivate human-centred work environments and mitigate risks associated with technological disruption and other external influences, informed by contemporary leadership theories.

03-PROFESSIONALISM/ACADEMICISM

(10 marks):

You should aim to meet the following expectations in terms of formatting and referencing:

•       Correct and thorough use of Harvard referencing. This includes in-text references and an alphabetized bibliography.

•       Appropriate and consistent choice of visual elements, including correct selection of graphs and tables concerning their explanatory purpose

•       Legible and consistent presentation of data in graphs and tables including clearly labelled and denominated axes

•       Organized and logical approach to structure, including table of contents, list of figures and tables, numbered pages, numbered sections and subsections, and bibliography. •             Spelling, punctuation, and grammar (SPG): UK English consistent with good practice in business and management applications.

Employability Statement

Provide a reflection on the way this module has enhanced your understanding of the importance of employees developing their emotional intelligence, curiosity and empathy in an increasingly AI driven workforce. 

•     Your reflection should be in first person and should relate to the materials you read or

learned about in your module

Sound knowledge of challenges from technological disruption and external factors. Occasionally descriptive, showing some

ability to synthesize scholarship and form arguments. Minor lapses in scholarly conventions. Sound discussion of organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities. Basic integration of cross-cultural leadership insights. Needs more critical depth.

Good analysis of challenges posed by technological disruption and external factors. Effective synthesis of theory and empirical evidence with clear arguments. Consistent use of scholarly conventions. Detailed discussion of organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities. Good integration of cross-cultural leadership insights.

Demonstrates

critical thinking and analysis.

Excellent analysis of challenges from technological disruption and external factors. Comprehensive synthesis of theory and empirical evidence with welldeveloped arguments. Excellent use of scholarly conventions. In-depth discussion

of organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities. Strong integration of crosscultural leadership insights. High level of critical thinking and originality.

Exceptional analysis of challenges from technological disruption and external factors. Masterful synthesis of theory and empirical evidence with compelling arguments. Flawless use of scholarly conventions.

Profound discussion of organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities. Exceptional integration of cross-cultural leadership insights. Demonstrates

exceptional critical thinking, originality, and intellectual rigour.

Limited research skills and understanding of human-centred work environments.

Fairly descriptive with restricted

Sound knowledge of human-centred work

environments and some ability to synthesize scholarship and form arguments.

Good

understanding of human-centred work environments with effective synthesis of scholarship and

synthesis of existing scholarship and weak arguments.

Little use of scholarly conventions. No actionable recommendations

for mitigating technological disruption risks.. Lacks coherence and practical relevance.

synthesis of scholarship and arguments. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions. Inadequate and impractical recommendations

for mitigating technological disruption risks. Lacks depth and practical insight.

synthesis of existing scholarship and weak argumentation. Limited use of scholarly conventions. Basic

recommendations

for mitigating technological disruption risks. and creativity. Needs more

practical relevance.

Minor lapses in scholarly conventions. Sound recommendations

for mitigating technological disruption risks..

Needs more depth and practical detail.

clear arguments. Consistent use of scholarly conventions. Practical and

innovative recommendations

for mitigating technological disruption risks. Demonstrates

critical thinking.

arguments. Excellent use of scholarly conventions.

Highly practical and innovative recommendations

for mitigating technological disruption risks.. High level of critical thinking and originality.

Consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstandingly practical and innovative recommendations for mitigating technological disruption risks. Outstanding

integration of curiosity,

empathy, and creativity.

Demonstrates outstanding critical thinking and originality.

use of scholarly conventions. Profound and innovative recommendations for mitigating technological disruption risks.

Exceptional integration of curiosity, empathy, and creativity. Demonstrates

exceptional critical thinking, originality, and intellectual rigour.

Quality of academic writing: correct use of Harvard referencing that

includes in-text references and an alphabetised bibliography. Correct spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar.

Inadequate use of Harvard referencing. Major problems with structure and numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Work

lacks clarity and coherence. Poor writing with significant issues in academic conventions. Low readability and professionalism.

Limited use of Harvard referencing. Significant problems with structure and accuracy in expression. Several errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar.

Fair writing with

notable issues in academic conventions. Affects readability and professionalism.

Minor lapses in the use of Harvard referencing.

Some problems with structure and occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar.

Generally clear but could be improved. Adequate writing with some issues in academic conventions. Acceptable readability and professionalism.

Consistent use of Harvard referencing. Few issues with structure and minor errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Clear and professional writing.

Good writing with adherence to academic conventions. High readability and professionalism.

Excellent use of Harvard referencing with no major errors. Well-structured and free from most errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar.

Writing is clear and professional. Excellent writing with strong adherence to academic conventions. Very high readability and professionalism.

Exemplary use of Harvard referencing with no errors. Wellstructured and nearly flawless in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Writing is highly professional and clear.

Outstanding writing with perfect adherence to academic conventions.  Outstanding  readability and professionalism.

Exceptional use of

Harvard referencing. Flawless structure and free from errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Writing is exceptionally clear, professional, and academic.

Exceptional writing with masterful adherence to academic conventions. Exceptional readability and professionalism.

Outstanding reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Outstanding

integration of curiosity, empathy and creativity

curiosity,

empathy, and creativity.

10-19%

Deficient knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ ethics in discipline.  Wholly descriptive, with deficient synthesis of existing scholarship and deficient argument.  Deficient use of scholarly conventions.

Deficient use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression.

Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Deficient use of scholarly conventions

1-9%

No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.  Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever.  No evidence of use of scholarly conventions.

No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions

0%

Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g., answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes

Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.

Mark Bands

Outcome

Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding

Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills

90-100%

Achieves module outcome(s)

Exceptional analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy.  Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates exceptional independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication. 

Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.  Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/ intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication. 

80-89%

Outstanding analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy.  Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates outstanding independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency

Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.  Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding

expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Outstanding academic/intellectual skills

70-79%

Excellent analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics.  Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. 

Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.  Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, excellent level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality. 

60-69%

Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.  Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions

Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.  Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions

50-59%

A marginal pass in module outcome(s)

Sound knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline.

Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. 

Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. 

40-49%

A marginal fail in module outcome(s). Satisfies default qualifying mark

Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Fairly descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions.

Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression.

Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions. 

30-39%

Fails to achieve module outcome(s).  Qualifying mark

not satisfied

Inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate evidence of argument. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions.

Inadequate evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Inadequate evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions. 

20-29%

Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.  Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little

Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/

Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Little