Project Management, Leadership and Skills – Masters Degree in Project Management (UK)

Leaders can create a team from a group by ensuring all members do their best for the project’.

Critically discuss the role of leadership and teambuilding in project management utilising appropriate theoretical models to identify how project staff can be led and motivated. Include in your answer a discussion of the way teams develop and the role of leadership and communication in this process.

You will need to take the following into account when completing your assignment.

• Establishment of relevant theory (e.g. what do we mean by leadership, how can leaders be classified, what is the relationship between leader and team and project in theoretical terms?).
• Allocation of credit and sources used; (have I included references and citations to the material I have used?);
• Clarity of argument and relevance to the project management context
• Overall report presentation including spelling and grammar;
• Adherence to nominated word limit.

This coursework should follow a structured approach and should be prepared and presented as a professional business report. You should undertake a relevant literature review that helps inform your investigation. Please also ensure that the Harvard Referencing System is adhered to and fully complied with.

Marking Scheme

Criteria Marks
Use of theory 30
Examples 30
Quality of argument 10
Reference to course ideas 10
Citation and References 10
Conclusions 10

Submission details

Relates to Learning Outcomes:

• Locate, synthesise and critically evaluate recent/current information from a wide range of published literature in Project Management
• Apply knowledge of the theory and practice of project planning and control and the use of Project Management methods and techniques.
• Critically evaluate the use of techniques in leading, planning, control and process management.

Assessment Housekeeping:
You are required to follow the University’s regulations regarding plagiarism and citing sources and references used.
Criterion / Mark range
90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-39
Overall level
(indicative – not for grading) Standard comparable to journal publication Standard comparable to conference paper publication Distinctive work for Masters level Merit work for Masters level Acceptable for Masters Below Masters pass standard Significantly below Masters pass standard
Scope Outstanding clarity of focus, includes what is important, and excludes irrelevant issues. Excellent clarity of focus, boundaries set with no significant omissions or unnecessary issues. Clear focus. Very good setting of boundaries includes most of what is relevant. Clear scope and focus, with some omissions or unnecessary issues. Scope evident and satisfactory but with some omissions and unnecessary issues. Poorly scoped, with significant omissions and unnecessary issues. Little or no scope or focus evident.
Understanding of subject matter
Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas. Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Good with some awareness of relevance of issues. Ideas are expressed, with some limitation. Basic with limited awareness of relevance of issues. Limited expression of ideas. Poor with little awareness of relevance of issues Little or no understanding of subject matter is demonstrated.
Literature
Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution. Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution. Very good independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce a very good contribution. Good secondary research to extend taught materials. Evidence of evaluation of sources, with some deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Little or no extension of taught materials. Poor choice and synthesis of materials. Poor use of taught materials. No synthesis.
Critical analysis based on evidence Standard of critical analysis – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought. Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought. Little or no analysis. No valid analysis.
Structure of argument, leading to conclusion Well structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work. Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work. Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work. Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues. Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues. Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion. No evidence of argument or conclusion.