|Individual Essay Information Type: Assignment – Written AssignmentÃ¢â‚¬Â¨Word Length: 2000 approximately Learning Outcomes Assessed: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Due Date: Midnight, Saturday 10 Jan 2015, Week 11 Weight: 40% Task Description: Students are required to submit a written assignment (to Turn It In) addressing the topic listed below. The essay should demonstrate that you have grasped the theoretical concepts of HRM, that you are able to interpret research in a critical manner, and that you can link theory with HRM practice. The essay should incorporate a minimum of eight (8) peer reviewed sources dated 1990 and later. The prescribed textbook may be referenced, but the essay must not use additional textbooks as references. Topic: Compensation OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Neill (1995) notes the significant expense of remuneration to an organisation, yet also contends that Ã¢â‚¬Å“few companies have a clear statement of the philosophy and rationale underlying what it is they want their pay and benefits package to achieveÃ¢â‚¬Â (p. 103). Kerr (1995) adds that often reward systems encourage unwanted behaviours while desired behaviours are not encouraged at all. Yet organisational success rests on the strategic link to its reward structure given that it impacts attraction, development, motivation and retention of individual employees (Huang & Kleiner, 2005).Ã¢â‚¬Â¨ In your essay, describe what is meant by a reward system, and describe the human resource management strategies you would implement to achieve an effective reward structure that will encourage enhanced performance of employees in an organisation. Criteria & Marking: Assessment Criteria: Ã£Æ’Â» Depth and breadth of research Ã£Æ’Â» Depth of discussion Ã£Æ’Â» Demonstrated understanding of the topic Ã£Æ’Â» Understanding and application of relevant theory Ã£Æ’Â» Include a minimum of eight peer reviewed sources dated 2000 or later Ã£Æ’Â» Written expression, including grammar, structure, spelling and punctuationÃ¢â‚¬Â¨ Notes on criteria Depth and breadth of research (20 marks) This criterion is focused on the research selected. Depth and breadth are notionally competing concepts; the former alludes to the degree of concentrated focus on a specific matter, whereas breadth connotes the extents or scope of coverage connected to the matter. More breadth implies less focus, or depth, on any specific element within the scope. One way to conceptualise this is via a strata and terrain analogy; strata are underlying levels below a point of interest, while terrain is the surrounding geography. Your research needs to reflect an appropriate attention to each (competing) aspect. Since your essay is relatively confined both in topic and word length, depth may warrant more weight. However, you should consider both in developing a fuller understanding of the issue. Usually, depth will refer to the substantive quality of the literature used. Deeper articles delve into the levels and examine specific issues. Depth implies a narrower, more detailed examination of the contributing elements of an issue, drilling down to obtain a more detailed understanding of the issue. Breadth, on the other hand, can be conceptualised from the Ã¢â‚¬Å“helicopter viewÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“big pictureÃ¢â‚¬Â analogies of the terrain surrounding an issue; it allows us to see connections with other issues. By this, a wider perspective is taken and a range of factors that relate to, or contribute to, the issue at hand are examined for their role. Of course, each of the factors in the terrain could be further examined at depth. Thus, this incorporates the range of literature that may relate to the issue of interest because it addresses some contextual factors. In terms of literature, depth means you have selected articles that focus on the same core issue (a similar purpose or intent) though they may examine different facets from different perspectives. Breadth suggests, at minimum, that you have used a variety of authors to derive a range of perspectives. However, breadth also implies variety in article method, origin, scope, and conceptualisation. In either case, the articles used would adhere to an academic format (review or research) incorporating critical evaluation of, and development of, known or new information. They tend not to be descriptive or prescriptive, except to the limited extent that this is necessary. Depth of discussion (20 marks) This criterion is focused on your ability to discuss. Discussion essentially involves tossing around or exchanging ideas, investigating an issue through reasoning and argument by taking into account different issues or ideas. Considering the description of depth above, before depth in discussion is feasible, You must acquire a conceptualisation of the details and workings of the issue of interest. This will incorporate an understanding of the differing views offered on the matter, where they agree and where they disagree. You must analyse, evaluate and reconcile component parts and perspectives, thereby deriving a personal interpretation of the issue/s. Founded on a solid understanding of the issue, your discussion is more likely to provide a narrative that demonstrates depth. Discussion that demonstrate depth identifies the critical features pertaining to the issue, identifies relevant literature views and critically examines their contributions, derives and justifies verdicts on the evidence, and offers and justifies resolutions to the issue/s. Discussion that lacks depth tends to Re-present article content or the views of authors, either paraphrased or quoted Rely on definitions and descriptions Rely on opinions and prescriptions Assert without justification Understanding and application of relevant theory (20) This criterion is focused on your selection and use of theory. Here you are showing you recognise the appropriate theory that relates to the issue and you know how to use that theory in addressing the issue and developing strategies. Firstly, note that although theory may be initiated through the singular findings or conclusions expressed by particular authors, theory is more a coherent set of propositions that have been broadly tested, and commonly accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. However, theory is not factual but still conjectural and subject to experimentation. Secondly, understanding is more than displaying knowledge; understanding involves comprehension. Comprehension intimates a capacity to state, describe, organise, interpret, translate, compare and extrapolate the main ideas. Hence, identifying/choosing relevant theory is the first requirement in demonstrating understanding. However, merely describing (or retelling) the theory does not demonstrate understanding nor is it application. Here you must demonstrate how/why the theory applies to the issue at hand and how/why it helps to explain, understand, and develop responses to it. Understanding also implies recognising any limitations in the application of the theory to the issue. Demonstrated understanding of the topic (20) This criterion is focused on your holistic appreciation of the topic domain and your ability to put the issue into context. There is an interrelation between your topic insight and your selection of literature and depth of discussion. A lack of topic understanding is likely to be reflected in weak literature selection and superficial discussion. The following may help in demonstrating understanding of the topic: There is strong sense of purpose in your writing that intimates a clear sense of direction, what the essential issues are, and how they are linked together. You follow a logical and well-reasoned portrayal of the topic matter to progress to your resolution Your use of literature and justifications are spot-on. You own your narrative; you do not rely on re-presenting the literature content but your discussion presents your own interpretation of, and insights into, the material used. Your ideas are presented succinctly.