Please give a title to this report according to what you have written. In the file I uploaded, there is a British paper grading standard. Please complete according to the British paper grading standard.

This link is about Harzing. Read it.

http://www(dot)harzing(dot)com/download/ihrmchapter.pdf

ASSESSMENT 2  (2000 words) 

Individual Report based on the Case Study below

Scrum-me biscuits

Scrum-me Biscuits is a large UK-based snack manufacturer that was set up in the nineteenth century. It is now one of the largest snack manufacturers in the UK. Over the past two decades it has been internationalizing its operations, and has acquired companies in the USA and Australia. No major adjustment issues have been encountered in these two countries.

In 2012 it became involved in a joint venture in the south of Japan. The Japanese partners were local businessmen who had no prior experience in biscuit-making. Scrum-me pumped in money and resources, and the Japanese partners set up the land deal. The biscuit factory was built on a greenfield site, and was equipped with state-of-the-art machinery. Scrum-me took the view initially that it would be easier to send UK expatriates to run the factory, as they assumed that what works well at home, will transfer well to any new Country of operation and, with this approach, no major difficulties had been encountered in the USA and in Australia. They would be working with a few selected Japanese managers, who would help them with recruitment and daily management of the shop-floor.

However, in the following two years numerous problems occurred within the Japanese factory. These included issues with quality control, stock control, and failing to deliver orders to customers on time. No great insight had been gained by trying to speak with the expatriates over the phone and discussion inevitably tended to focus on performance matters only. Nevertheless, it was clear that things were not going well and that expatriates were feeling increasingly frustrated with the situation but seems clueless on how to improve it.

Scrum-me sent out a delegation of senior managers to investigate the situation; to inspect the plant and interview the expatriates in one-to-one meetings.

They later sent a report outlining their key findings, see them summarized below.

Main issues observed in the shop-floor: 

• There were low levels of motivation within the shop-floor ranks.
• Both shop-floor workers and Japanese managers seemed unwilling or unable to take on any level of responsibility.

• Local managers would be exerting strong pressure to hire members of their family rather than the best person for the job.
• Both employees and managers seemed to be unhappy with the use of Performance Related Pay (PRP) which expatriates were trying hard to enforce.
• Expat managers seemed unable to manage the situation effectively. 
• When working in mixed teams –British/Japanese- decision making proved to be a nightmare.
• They seemed much more vocal when they were meeting outside the office. Indeed, they tended to socialize quite a lot…but Britons expats were not invited to join in, as if they were not trusted.

Results of a survey of expatriates’ experience and satisfaction

After surveying all of the expatriate managers by means of in-depth interviews, it came to light that:

-          They felt that Scrum-me were not doing a great job in career-planning: all of them had been in the country for over 3 years (3 of them had been sent at the very beginning) and some of them had only agreed to stay for a maximum of 2 years. None of them know when they will be sent back home.

-          looking back at their pre-departure training, they all felt resentful against Scrum-me as they failed to prepare them for ‘the actual thing’;

-          they all felt that they were receiving very little support from the HQs and that they had just ‘been left alone to deal with it all’;

-          4 out of 6 were experiencing family conflict as partners and children wanted to go back as they were struggling to settle in (little support for family was on offer);

-          all of them but one planned on leaving the company if things did not change in the very near future.

PLEASE WRITE A 2000 WORDS REPORT FOR THE BOARD OF MANAGERS WHERE YOU ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

Q1. What are the main issues with Scrum-me’s management of expatriation? (Refer to the stages of Brewster et al.’s expatriation cycle).

Q2. Can you identify three reasons why team-working is going so wrong (refer to Brett et al’s theory)?

Q2. Using module theory (i.e. Harzing) and a few companies’ examples, can you give Scrum-me some advice on how to improve their expatriation strategy and planning? (When giving advice, aim at resolving the issues identified in your earlier sections, so that the report is cohesive and well-integrated).

Please Note: Your report needs to be informed and underpinned by academic literature throughout. Relevant examples are also important.

Recommendations need to be realistic and feasible.

Assessment criteria:

The following assessment criteria will be used to mark your essays:

Evidence of understanding and engagement with key theory                                         (30 marks)

Breadth and depth of your discussion                                                                      (20 marks)

Proactivity in extent and range of research as evidenced by content & bibliography       (20 marks)

Specificity of actions to take forward                                                                         (20 marks)

Overall presentation (including appropriate referencing)                                     (10 marks)

SUBMISSION INFO:

FORMATIVE FEEDBACK: Formative feedback on the structure of your report will be given in the last week of December (11/12/2018) and during the first teaching week in January (09/01/2019). Please remember that you can also email me to book one of the available surgery slots for more feedback.

FINAL DEADLINE: 14/01/2019 by 12.00 noon. Work may be submitted any day prior to the deadline. Students will be given summative feedback on their coursework within 4 working weeks of the submission date above (i.e. by 11/02/2019). A subsequent opportunity to discuss your work and feedback is also offered to students by the module team, when requested via email.

Academic Offences

All your work must contain references to your sources, however acquired.  To copy another person’s work is viewed as plagiarism and is not allowed in UK academic institutions.  All your work must be your own and other sources must be identified as being theirs, not yours.  The copying of another person’s work will result in you receiving a zero for your assignment and could result in expulsion from the university altogether.  Dictionaries, mobile phones and translators are not allowed in formal end of module tests or exams.

If you are unsure about what equals an academic offence, please click here or see the Faculty Support Office.  Some useful guidance on how to reference correctly, and avoid plagiarism can be found here other http://www(dot)learnhigher(dot)ac(dot)uk/referencing/ You should also review the following scenarios to ensure you do not unwittingly commit and academic offence: http://perception(dot)plymouth(dot)ac(dot)uk/q4/session.dll?CALL=plagiarism.pip

Level Descriptors

(your work is likely to display the following characteristics in some or all areas):

70%+

–          Excellent and articulate introduction and statement of aims and context. 

–          Well structured, logical and coherent throughout with critical analysis of the issues. Research is clearly presented and appropriate analysis conducted and discussed.

–          Excellent coverage of relevant issues, drawn from a range of credible sources (theory and empirical evidence), properly referenced (BOTH IN TEXT AND AT THE END).

–          Develops a strong case with clear introduction and robust conclusions/recommendations, providing a convincing argument supported by theory and empirical evidence.

60-69%

–          Clear introduction and statement of aims and objectives and context. 

–          Should cover all or most key areas of theories / example Case study but may lack detail in some places or use less robust sources.

–          Logical and coherent throughout, using both theory and empirical evidence to sufficient depth, but perhaps a little factual in places or offering a less well developed argument overall.

–          Research is presented at sufficient depth and is of a good standard, adhering to proper referencing norms with some good analysis and discussion. Some gaps may be visible. 

–          Good conclusion and recommendations that build from analysis of research.

50-59%

Will typically display some or all of the following characteristics:

–          Some clarity or focus in the introduction, statement of aims and objectives and context may be missing or inadequately articulated. 

–          Focuses on just one key area of literature (or weaker coverage of several key areas), inadequately researched (lacking depth and criticality) and not properly integrated into argument. 

–          Argues the case, which is largely descriptive, may not always be consistent with the research and may show areas of weakness.

–          Research methods and analysis of results may be lacking in some areas. (may not be very consistent and show some areas of weakness and gap).

–          Conclusion could be rather factual and recommendations quite weak.

40-49%

–          Not much clarity or focus in the introduction; statement of aims and objectives and context may be missing or inadequately articulated. 

–          Basic factual knowledge of some areas, perhaps using poor sources from the literature (for example reliance on web-based sources).

–          Some attempt at conducting research, but likely to be weak in theory and empirical evidence, which is poorly referenced as well. 

–          Weak argument and conclusion, weak recommendations, poorly supported by evidence.

–          Weak structure with lack of clarity or focus and illogical presentation. 

Fail (<40%)

–          Weak and sketchy knowledge, usually using few sources, poor structure, lack of clarity and focus.

–          Research typically very weak in all areas.

–          Inadequate / nil argument, poorly supported by theory /case studies (non-existent)

–          Little or no argument and poor conclusion; poorly referenced (mostly based on non-academic sources).