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. |
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
This assignment must be completed individually.
• All courses of study must use the Harvard referencing system for written assessments, apart from LLB/LLM courses where OSCOLA should be applied. Please see the link below for guidance: https://library.aru.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgment of the piece of work, which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (Regulation 6.88).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
Students are expected to submit their work by the published deadline.
• Penalties are applied if work is submitted late, within the guidelines below:
• if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your mark will receive a 10% penalty.
• if you submit your work up to TWO working days after the published submission deadline – it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 50%.
• Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.
• Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other causes considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed upon by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours before the deadline. Students will need to provide evidence to support their extension request. See rules 6.70-6.79:
• http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
• Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of exceptional circumstances concerning this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team – DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. Students will need to provide evidence to support their EC claim. See rules 6.118 – 6.138:
In today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape, organisations are confronted with the challenge of harnessing the potential of emerging technologies while simultaneously nurturing distinctly human capabilities. UNESCO, the United Nations Agency that promotes international cooperation in education, arts, sciences and culture, have commissioned a study into the way inequalities are embedded in AI.
They argue for the need to development national digital and AI policies, funding mechanisms and broader policy measures that address structural gender gaps and ensure women and girls are not excluded from the AI-driven digital economy. Who is designing the technology, and who is it being designed for?
UNESCO are also concerned that the wealth generated by AI will remain in developed economies, failing to trickle down to developing nations.
Task 1:
In the role of a management consultant, you have been hired by an international technology company from the list below, to critically assess ways they can proactively cultivate and operationalise human-centred work environments that prioritise equal participation, representation and entrepreneurship in AI driven businesses. Ensure your analysis applies integrates insights from contemporary leadership and stakeholder management theories (40 marks)
Organisations to choose from (pick one)
– OpenAI
– Google DeepMind
– Anthropic
– Nvidia
Task 2:
You have been asked to create five recommendations about how the company’s leadership might create cross-cultural, human-centred work environments and platforms. Ensure you are drawing on appropriate case studies and evidence. (40 marks)
Task 3
Your conclusion should include a 100-word statement about how this module has enhanced your understanding of the importance of employees developing their emotional intelligence, curiosity and empathy in an increasingly AI driven workforce. (10 marks)
Academic Professionalism including referencing is also worth 10 marks ASSIGNMENT FORMAT
Write a 3,000-word report and include a table of contents, bibliography, and appendix.
The report format should include:
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Main Arguments
- Conclusion
- Recommendations
- References
- Appendices
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Table 1: Assessment criteria and points to consider when completing the practical presentation.
| Criteria | Marks | Points to consider |
|
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. |
40 |
|
|
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. |
40 | • Propose imaginative strategies for leaders to create human-centred work environments and leverage maximum return from human capital in the face of these external factors, integrating insights from contemporary leadership and stakeholder management theories. |
|
|
|
• Draw on real life examples of innovation from your selected organisation to demonstrate how the challenges are being met in the business environment. |
|
03-PROFESSIONALISM/ACADEMICISM (10 marks): |
10 |
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 |
Table 1: Marking and Grading Criteria (Also see Table 2)
| Criteria / Grade | 0-29%: | 30-39%: | 40-49%: | 50-59%: | 60-69%: | 70-79%: | 80-89%: | 90-100%: |
| 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 crosscultural leadership approaches. | Little evidence of understanding key issues or concepts related to technological disruption or external factors. Largely descriptive, lacking synthesis of existing scholarship and arguments. Minimal use of scholarly conventions. Fails to address organisational dynamics or workforce capabilities. No integration of crosscultural leadership insights. Lacks coherence and critical analysis. | Inadequate evidence of understanding the impact of technological disruption and external factors. Mostly descriptive, with inadequate synthesis of scholarship and weak arguments. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions. Inadequate discussion on organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities. Minimal integration of cross-cultural leadership perspectives. Lacks depth and critical insight. | Limited understanding of challenges posed by technological disruption and external factors. Fairly descriptive with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and weak argumentation. Limited use of scholarly conventions. Some discussion of organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities but lacks depth. Limited integration of cross-cultural leadership insights. Requires further critical analysis. |
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. |
Outstanding analysis of challenges posed by technological disruption and external factors. Thorough synthesis of theory and empirical evidence with exemplary arguments. Outstanding discussion of organisational dynamics and workforce capabilities. Outstanding integration of crosscultural leadership insights. Demonstrates outstanding 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. |
| 40 marks | 0-11 | 12-15 | 16-19 | 20-23 | 24-27 | 28-31 | 32-35 | 36-40 |
| Provide innovative and actionable recommendations for leaders to cultivate human-centred work environments and mitigate risks associated with technological | Little evidence of research skills or understanding of creating humancentred work environments. Largely descriptive with minimal | Inadequate research skills and understanding of human-centred work environments. Mostly descriptive with inadequate |
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 |
Excellent understanding of human-centred work environments with comprehensive synthesis of scholarship and well-developed | Outstanding understanding of human-centred work environments with thorough synthesis of scholarship and exemplary arguments. | Exceptional understanding of human-centred work environments with masterful synthesis of scholarship and compelling arguments. Flawless |
| disruption and other external influences, informed by contemporary leadership theories. |
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. |
| 40 marks | 0-11 | 12-15 | 16-19 | 20-23 | 24-27 | 28-31 | 32-35 | 36-40 |
|
Quality of academic writing: correct use of Harvard referencing that includes in-text references and an alphabetised bibliography. Correct spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. |
No evidence of correct use of Harvard referencing. Numerous errors in structure, spelling, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. Work is incoherent and fails to meet academic standards. Incoherent writing with major issues in academic conventions. Poor readability and lack of professionalism. |
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. |
| 10 marks | 0-2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9-10 |
| Employability Statement Provide a reflection on the way this module has enhanced your understanding of the importance of | No reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Poor integration of | Inadequate reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Weak integration of | Limited reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Very minor integration | Sound reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Basic integration of curiosity, | Good reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Good integration of curiosity, | Excellent reflection on employability skills gained in the module. Strong integration o |