Understand how human resource management supports people and performance through workforce planning, recruitment, retention and employee relations.
Before the disaster, hopes had been high for PU for 2021/22. PU’s business plan for 2021/22 was originally based on an expected increase in student numbers. The plan included building a new lecture theatre and a new building for the Faculty of Music. The plan also included installation of renewable energy sources on the university campus and an improved pay structure for lecturers. However, it soon became clear that the plans were unrealistic. For the academic year 2022/23, student numbers are predicted to be much lower than originally expected. Many local students have decided to postpone their studies for a year, many international students will not return to complete their courses, and fewer new international students will enrol. International students pay higher fees to the university than the fees that the university receives from local students. In 2021/22 PU’s revenue fell, but PU still had to pay employees, maintain buildings and pay general expenses. Faced with a major cash-flow problem, PU had to find ways to reduce outflows. Reluctantly, Adriana made 10 % of teaching staff and support staff redundant, while 20 % of staff were moved to part-time employment. Other operating cost savings were made. However, Adriana decided to maintain PU’s aggressive marketing strategies in contrast to most other universities, which were cutting marketing budgets because of the economic recession. Adriana saw marketing expenditure as a worthwhile investment. The promotion emphasized PU’s achievements both in research and teaching, its services for students, its high levels of student satisfaction and its competitive fees.
Adriana thinks that, in the shorter term, PU needs to revise its employment contracts to try to restore morale to the teaching staff following redundancies. The IT training programmes need to continue and be expanded as new ways of working are introduced. She also thinks that the university cannot continue as it did in the past, with many facilities underused outside of term time, lecturers often travelling around the world to attend conferences, and PU relying so much on the higher fees paid by international students. Some faculties within the university would have to be reviewed. Research suggests that the number of students studying history and international languages has decreased in the last few years, and this trend is likely to continue. This decline at PU reflects falling interest in those subjects in schools. Some trustees have suggested no longer offering these subjects and using the subsequent savings to expand further provisions to the Faculties of Medicine and IT.
Jim Summerfield, head of the Faculty of History, has become controlling, rarely consults staff and is linked to allegations of bullying, low morale, sexist and racist attitudes and the unfair dismissal claim brought by Patricia Hughes. Before dismissal, Adriana should investigate the evidence, meet Jim and affected employees, follow PU's equality policies and a fair disciplinary procedure, give Jim a chance to respond, and consider support, training or a warning if appropriate. PU's cash-flow problem comes from recession, damaged facilities, lower student numbers and lost international-student fees while employees, buildings and general expenses still have to be paid. In addition to redundancies, PU could reduce hours or use part-time work, delay capital projects, reduce or control operating costs, negotiate payment terms, seek grants or finance, increase enrolment and fees, protect effective marketing, and commercialize or license successful medicine and AI research.
Outline two steps that Adriana should take if she decides to dismiss the head of the Faculty of History, Jim.
Two steps include:
- Tell Jim and other faculty members.
- Follow PU's HR procedure for dismissal.
- May need to meet with Jim and his trade union representatives. Prepare a case substantiating the reasons in case Jim takes P U to court for unfair dismissal, exactly as Patricia is doing after her own dismissal (line 90) (as 'dismissal' is about a fault, as opposed to 'redundancy').
- Ask HR to advertise for a new post, internally or externally, as Jim needs to be replaced
- Review of current staffing in the History department. Assess whether Jim needs to be replaced.
Accept any other relevant step, as long as they apply to what Adriana would need to do if she decides to dismiss Jim. Non-procedural steps can also be rewarded such as the department review.
Mark as a [2] + [2].
Award [1] for each appropriate step and [1] for application of each step.
Maximum award, for two steps: [4].
With reference to an organization of your choice, examine the impact of globalization and culture on human resource management.
Assessment criteria for Section C
Criterion A: Knowledge and conceptual understanding
This criterion addresses the extent to which the candidate demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the given concepts and relevant business management content (theories, techniques or tools, depending on the requirements of the question).
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | Superficial knowledge of the given concepts is demonstrated. Business management content is not selected or the content selected is irrelevant. |
| 2 | Satisfactory understanding of one or both of the given concepts is demonstrated. Some business management content selected is relevant. The relevant content is satisfactorily explained. |
| 3 | Good understanding of one or both of the given concepts is demonstrated. The business management content selected is relevant, though it may not be sufficient. The relevant content is generally well explained, though the explanation may lack some depth or breadth. |
| 4 | Good understanding of both of the given concepts is demonstrated. The business management content selected is relevant, sufficient and well explained. |
Criterion B: Application
This criterion addresses the extent to which the candidate is able to apply the given concepts and the relevant business management content (theories, techniques or tools, depending on the requirements of the question) to his or her chosen real-world organization(s). The real-world organization(s) must not be the organization featured in the prescribed case study for paper 1.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | The given concepts and/or any relevant business management content are connected to the real-world organization(s), but this connection is inappropriate or superficial. |
| 2 | The given concepts and/or relevant business management content are connected appropriately to the real-world organization(s), but this connection is not developed. |
| 3 | The given concepts and relevant business management content are generally well applied to explain the situation and issues of the real-world organization(s), though the explanation may lack some depth or breadth. Examples are provided. |
| 4 | The given concepts and relevant business management content are well applied to explain the situation and issues of the real-world organization(s). Examples are appropriate and illustrative. |
Criterion C: Reasoned arguments
This criterion assesses the extent to which the candidate makes reasoned arguments. This includes making relevant and balanced arguments by, for example, exploring different practices, weighing up their strengths and weaknesses, comparing and contrasting them or considering their implications, depending on the requirements of the question. It also includes justifying the arguments by presenting reasonable evidence or other support for the claims made.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | Statements are made but these are superficial. |
| 2 | Relevant arguments are made but these are mostly unjustified. |
| 3 | Relevant arguments are made and these are mostly justified. |
| 4 | Relevant, balanced arguments are made and these are well justified. |
Criterion D: Structure
This criterion assesses the extent to which the candidate organizes his or her ideas with clarity, and presents a structured piece of writing comprised of:
- an introduction
- a body
- a conclusion
- fit-for-purpose paragraphs.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | Two or fewer of the structural elements are present, and few ideas are clearly organized. |
| 2 | Three of the structural elements are present, or most ideas are clearly organized. |
| 3 | Three or four of the structural elements are present, and most ideas are clearly organized. |
| 4 | All of the structural elements are present, and ideas are clearly organized. |
Criterion E: Individuals and societies
This criterion assesses the extent to which the candidate is able to give balanced consideration to the perspectives of a range of relevant stakeholders, including individuals and groups internal and external to the organization.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | One individual or group perspective is considered superficially or inappropriately. |
| 2 | One relevant individual or group perspective is considered appropriately, or two relevant individual or group perspectives are considered superficially or inappropriately. |
| 3 | At least two relevant individual or group perspectives are considered appropriately. |
| 4 | Balanced consideration is given to relevant individual and group perspectives. |
N.B. Although the question asks for the application of one concept on another, it is still expected that Business Management content will be aligned with the concepts especially the second concept (the one being acted on).
Please note that candidates can conclude that there was a minimal impact, however it has to be based on balanced arguments and evaluation.
Additional guidance in relation to the assessment criteria
For each criterion, the aim is to find the descriptor that conveys most accurately the level attained by the candidate, using the best-fit model. It is not necessary for every single aspect of a level descriptor to be met for that mark to be awarded.
- The highest-level descriptors do not imply faultless performance and should be achievable by a candidate.
- A candidate who attains a high level of achievement for one criterion will not necessarily reach high levels of achievement for the other criteria and vice versa.
If only one concept is addressed:
- Criteria A, B, C and E: award up to a maximum [3].
- Criterion D: full marks can be awarded.
Where the question asks for impacts of two concepts on content, examiners must allow for unbalanced treatment of the two concepts throughout a candidate’s response. One concept may be more significant than the other.
Criterion B
For [2]: “...connection is not developed” should be treated the same as superficial.
Criterion C
1 + 1 arguments are expected per concept.
- Justification is through logic or data.
- For [2] there is no balance as there are no counter arguments at all, or the arguments are all one-sided then this would be unjustified.
- For [3] there are some balanced arguments – some of which are justified.
Criterion D
- Introductions need to be concise and related to the question.
- The candidate’s response does not to have explicit headings for each structural element.
- A body is the area in which the substance of arguments occurs. It is usually located between the introduction and the conclusion.
- Fit-for-purpose paragraph means that ideas are presented in a clear academic way. For example, one idea per paragraph.
Criterion E
- One example of an “individual” could be an individual consumer or an individual manager. However, this cannot be considered with a “group” of consumers or a management team.
- For [4], a balanced response: look at the perspectives of both individual and group(s).
- The chosen individual, group needs to be applicable and relevant to the question with specific explanation.
- Candidates need to go beyond stating the stakeholder.
- Please do not use the adjective ‘inappropriate’ in the descriptor for [2]. If inappropriate award [1].
Candidates need not explicitly say “stakeholder”.
In section C, the question rubric explicitly states that “organizations featured in sections A and B and in the paper 1 case study may not be used as a basis” to candidate’s answers to questions 6, 7 and 8. When this happens please award marks as follows:
Criterion A: award a maximum of [1]. The business management content cannot be relevant if the organization is fictitious.
Criterion B: award [0] – there is no connection to a “real-world organization”
Criterion C: award a maximum of [1]. The arguments cannot be relevant if the organization is fictitious.
Criterion D: mark as normal.
Criterion E: award up to a maximum of [1]. The individual and/or group perspective(s) cannot be relevant if the organization is fictitious.
With reference to an organization of your choice, discuss the ways in which culture and change can influence human resource management.
Assessment criteria for Section C
Criterion A: Knowledge and conceptual understanding
This criterion addresses the extent to which the candidate demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the given concepts and relevant business management content (theories, techniques or tools, depending on the requirements of the question).
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | Superficial knowledge of the given concepts is demonstrated. Business management content is not selected or the content selected is irrelevant. |
| 2 | Satisfactory understanding of one or both of the given concepts is demonstrated. Some business management content selected is relevant. The relevant content is satisfactorily explained. |
| 3 | Good understanding of one or both of the given concepts is demonstrated. The business management content selected is relevant, though it may not be sufficient. The relevant content is generally well explained, though the explanation may lack some depth or breadth. |
| 4 | Good understanding of both of the given concepts is demonstrated. The business management content selected is relevant, sufficient and well explained. |
Criterion B: Application
This criterion addresses the extent to which the candidate is able to apply the given concepts and the relevant business management content (theories, techniques or tools, depending on the requirements of the question) to his or her chosen real-world organization(s). The real-world organization(s) must not be the organization featured in the prescribed case study for paper 1.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | The given concepts and/or any relevant business management content are connected to the real-world organization(s), but this connection is inappropriate or superficial. |
| 2 | The given concepts and/or relevant business management content are connected appropriately to the real-world organization(s), but this connection is not developed. |
| 3 | The given concepts and relevant business management content are generally well applied to explain the situation and issues of the real-world organization(s), though the explanation may lack some depth or breadth. Examples are provided. |
| 4 | The given concepts and relevant business management content are well applied to explain the situation and issues of the real-world organization(s). Examples are appropriate and illustrative. |
Criterion C: Reasoned arguments
This criterion assesses the extent to which the candidate makes reasoned arguments. This includes making relevant and balanced arguments by, for example, exploring different practices, weighing up their strengths and weaknesses, comparing and contrasting them or considering their implications, depending on the requirements of the question. It also includes justifying the arguments by presenting reasonable evidence or other support for the claims made.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | Statements are made but these are superficial. |
| 2 | Relevant arguments are made but these are mostly unjustified. |
| 3 | Relevant arguments are made and these are mostly justified. |
| 4 | Relevant, balanced arguments are made and these are well justified. |
Criterion D: Structure
This criterion assesses the extent to which the candidate organizes his or her ideas with clarity, and presents a structured piece of writing comprised of:
- an introduction
- a body
- a conclusion
- fit-for-purpose paragraphs.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | Two or fewer of the structural elements are present, and few ideas are clearly organized. |
| 2 | Three of the structural elements are present, or most ideas are clearly organized. |
| 3 | Three or four of the structural elements are present, and most ideas are clearly organized. |
| 4 | All of the structural elements are present, and ideas are clearly organized. |
Criterion E: Individuals and societies
This criterion assesses the extent to which the candidate is able to give balanced consideration to the perspectives of a range of relevant stakeholders, including individuals and groups internal and external to the organization.
| Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1 | One individual or group perspective is considered superficially or inappropriately. |
| 2 | One relevant individual or group perspective is considered appropriately, or two relevant individual or group perspectives are considered superficially or inappropriately. |
| 3 | At least two relevant individual or group perspectives are considered appropriately. |
| 4 | Balanced consideration is given to relevant individual and group perspectives. |
N.B. Although the question asks for the application of one concept on another, it is still expected that Business Management content will be aligned with the concepts especially the second concept (the one being acted on).
Please note that candidates can conclude that there was a minimal impact, however it has to be based on balanced arguments and evaluation.
Additional guidance in relation to the assessment criteria
For each criterion, the aim is to find the descriptor that conveys most accurately the level attained by the candidate, using the best-fit model. It is not necessary for every single aspect of a level descriptor to be met for that mark to be awarded.
- The highest-level descriptors do not imply faultless performance and should be achievable by a candidate.
- A candidate who attains a high level of achievement for one criterion will not necessarily reach high levels of achievement for the other criteria and vice versa.
If only one concept is addressed:
- Criteria A, B, C and E: award up to a maximum [3].
- Criterion D: full marks can be awarded.
Where the question asks for impacts of two concepts on content, examiners must allow for unbalanced treatment of the two concepts throughout a candidate’s response. One concept may be more significant than the other.
Criterion B
For [2]: “...connection is not developed” should be treated the same as superficial.
Criterion C
1 + 1 arguments are expected per concept.
- Justification is through logic or data.
- For [2] there is no balance as there are no counter arguments at all, or the arguments are all one-sided then this would be unjustified.
- For [3] there are some balanced arguments – some of which are justified.
Criterion D
- Introductions need to be concise and related to the question.
- The candidate’s response does not to have explicit headings for each structural element.
- A body is the area in which the substance of arguments occurs. It is usually located between the introduction and the conclusion.
- Fit-for-purpose paragraph means that ideas are presented in a clear academic way. For example, one idea per paragraph.
Criterion E
- One example of an “individual” could be an individual consumer or an individual manager. However, this cannot be considered with a “group” of consumers or a management team.
- For [4], a balanced response: look at the perspectives of both individual and group(s).
- The chosen individual, group needs to be applicable and relevant to the question with specific explanation.
- Candidates need to go beyond stating the stakeholder.
- Please do not use the adjective ‘inappropriate’ in the descriptor for [2]. If inappropriate award [1].
Candidates need not explicitly say “stakeholder”.
In section C, the question rubric explicitly states that “organizations featured in sections A and B and in the paper 1 case study may not be used as a basis” to candidate’s answers to questions 6, 7 and 8. When this happens please award marks as follows:
Criterion A: award a maximum of [1]. The business management content cannot be relevant if the organization is fictitious.
Criterion B: award [0] – there is no connection to a “real-world organization”
Criterion C: award a maximum of [1]. The arguments cannot be relevant if the organization is fictitious.
Criterion D: mark as normal.
Criterion E: award up to a maximum of [1]. The individual and/or group perspective(s) cannot be relevant if the organization is fictitious.