An individual Management Skills Portfolio will consist of four tasks (equal weighting) undertaken in preparation for, and reflective exercises subsequent to, the weekly skills workshops, as follows:
Task 1: Interviewing Skills reflection
600-word self-reflection of your experience as a manager in the interviewing skills practical roleplay. You should explain elements of the skill by reference to the relevant literature and theories and critically analyse your performance in the context of the literature. You should also identify how you could improve in future and support this by reference to the relevant literature and theory.
Task 2: Reviewing Performance report
300-word report to your Line Manager outlining the issues discussed at the reviewing performance practical role-play and the action agreed to resolve these. 300-word summary of links to theoretical models/frameworks used in role as manager. The report and summary must be completed using the Reviewing Performance Report template below.
Task 3: Negotiation Skills Case Study analysis
600-word case study analysis, drawing on your experience as a manager in the negotiation skills practical roleplay and the relevant literature in order to inform your approach. You will need to explain the rationale underpinning your chosen negotiation strategy and associated tactics, critically evaluating its strengths and weaknesses.
Task 4: Training Plan
Your training plan will be based on your delivery of a training session (on a topic of your choice) during the relevant skills workshops. The training plan should include the aims and objectives of your session, a description and justification of the training activities, and analysis of any challenges experienced during the delivery of the session. The training plan must be completed using the format shown below (electronic copy available on Blackboard) and should not be longer than 2 x A4 pages and 600-words. You are required to draw on relevant theory in order to support and develop your plan.
Please note that you are required to provide a full reference list in the end of the portfolio. It is recommended that you draw on at least 5 academic sources for each task.
Your Management Skills Portfolio must be a single file/document and adhere to the following structure:
The 600-word self-reflection from your perspective as a manager
Reviewing Performance report (maximum 600 words) using the following format (template available on Blackboard):
Management Skills – Component B – Task 2: Reviewing Performance
Write a report to your line manager outlining what issues were discussed at Performance Review and what action was agreed to resolve the issue.
Maximum 600 words
1.Identification of issues discussed at review
2.Identification of SMART objectives for the employee
3.Explanation of additional support required
4.Detail of timescales and follow up action
5.Written as a concise and useful business document
6.Summary of links with theoretical models and frameworks
Name of Reviewer:
Name of Reviewee:
Date of Performance review:
1.Detail the issues that were discussed at Performance Review
2.What causes for the underperformance can be identified?
1.What SMART objectives were agreed (include at least 3)?
2.What training, development and support was identified?
3.What follow up action is needed, by whom and when?
4.Timescale for next review?
Academic Summary – 300 words:
Identify the models/frameworks you used to help inform your behaviour and decisions as Manager in this task and where/why/how you used them.
Negotiation case study analysis (maximum 600 words)
Training plan (maximum 2x A4 pages) using the following format (template available on Blackboard):
These are given in the Reading list within the Blackboard site. There are lots of materials to support the development of your portfolio in the lecture and workshop skills study units including relevant references.
Please follow the links below to full learning outcomes and module specification:
Management Skills (Business & Management) http://info.uwe.ac.uk/modules/displayentry.asp?code=UMPDM5-15-2&rp=listEntry.asp
Management Skills (Marketing & Events) http://info.uwe.ac.uk/modules/displayentry.asp?code=UMPDM6-15-2&rp=listEntry.asp
Management Skills (Business & Law) http://info.uwe.ac.uk/modules/displayentry.asp?code=UMPDND-15-2&rp=listEntry.asp
Global Management Skills
The following criteria will be used in evaluating this assessment:
Component B: Management Skills Portfolio assessment criteria
Criteria 70 + 69 – 60 59 – 50 49 – 40 39 – 0
TASK 1 Interview Self Reflection
Critical analysis into strengths and limitations of students own performance
Integration of theory with analysis of performance
Identification and justification of steps for self-improvement Thoughtful, critical and perceptive insights throughout into strengths and limitations of student’s own performance.
The analysis is clearly informed by theory.
Excellent links are made between theory and student’s performance.
Ideas for self- improvement are challenging and
well justified. Some thoughtful, critical and perceptive insights into strengths and limitations of students own performance.
Examples from student’s performance are analysed by reference to relevant theories but would have benefitted from more detailed analysis and integration.
A serious attempt is made to specify steps for self-improvement, but they could be more challenging, or
better justified. Some attempt has been made to reflect critically on strengths and limitations of student’s own performance, but its scope and depth are limited.
Some attempt has been made to integrate theory with analysis of student’s performance, but further development needed.
Steps for self – improvement plan needs further
development and/or justification. Only a weak attempt to reflect critically on strengths and limitations of student’s own performance.
The self-reflection includes examples from students’s performance, but these are insufficiently linked to theory.
Or the self-reflection includes some theory, but it is insufficiently linked to analysis of performance.
Very limited steps for self-improvement identified. Lacks critical insight into strengths and limitations of student’s own performance.
Insufficient integration of theory with analysis of performance.
Little or no steps for self- improvement identified.
Performance Review report
Identification of issues discussed at review
Identification of SMART objectives
Explanation of additional support required
Details of timescales and follow-up action
Models/frameworks summarized and explained
Excellent identification of key performance issues discussed at review.
Clear, appropriate and SMART objectives are provided.
Outstanding explanation of a variety of additional support activities with realistic timeframes and appropriate follow- up actions.
Outstanding explanation of how models/ frameworks are used to inform behaviour and decisions.
Very good attempt to identify performance issues and to identify objectives, but some do not achieve all the ‘SMART’ criteria.
Clear explanation of a range of sources of support with timeframes and follow-up actions although these could be more realistic and/or appropriate to the performance issues.
Very good attempt to explain how models/ frameworks are used to inform behaviour and decisions.
Adequate attempt to identify broad issues from the review but lacks depth.
Objectives are identified but all/some do not achieve the SMART criteria and/or lacks relevance to the identified performance issues.
Some sources of additional support are described but further explanation is needed. Timescales and follow- up action are be limited/unrealistic.
Adequate attempt to identify models/
frameworks and their use in the role play.
Superficial or inadequate attempt to identify performance issues.
A limited set of objectives which do not meet the SMART criteria.
Weak explanation of additional support and/or unrealistic follow-up actions and timescales.
Limited identification of models/
frameworks and some attempt to describe their use.
Very weak identification or insufficient detail of performance review issues.
Little attempt to identify SMART objectives.
Poor explanation of additional support required and inappropriate or irrelevant follow-up actions. Timescales are missing or unrealistic.
Poor or no identification of models/
TASK 3: Negotiation case study analysis
Identification of key areas of negotiation
Quality of plan for negotiation interview
Integration of theory with analysis of case
Excellent identification of key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan provides an exceptionally robust and concise outline for the negotiation, supported by evidence from the analysis of the case.
Excellent links are made between theory and the analysis of the case.
Very good identification of most key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan provides a very good and concise outline for the negotiation, supported by some evidence from the analysis of the case.
There are some links from the case analysis to relevant theories but would have benefitted from more detailed analysis and integration.
Identifies some key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan provides a competent outline for the negotiation but lacks detail or limited supporting evidence from the case analysis.
Some attempt has been made to integrate theory with analysis of the case study, but further development needed.
Superficial or inadequate attempt to identify key areas of negotiation
Interview plan lacks detail and provides
inadequate outline for the negotiation, with little or no supporting evidence from the case study analysis.
The analysis includes examples from the case study, but these are insufficiently linked to theory OR includes some theory, but it is insufficiently linked to analysis of the case study.
Very weak identification or insufficient attempt to identify key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan is limited and not supported by evidence from the case study analysis.
Insufficient integration of theory with case study analysis.
TASK 4: Training Plan
Identification of training aim and objectives
Explanation for selecting training activities
Analysis of challenges in delivery of training, drawing on relevant academic literature
Excellent identification of clear training aim and session objectives.
Outstanding explanation and justification for training activities.
Thoughtful and critical analysis of challenges in delivery of the training, including ideas for
improvement. Excellent integration of academic literature
Very good identification of aim and objectives of training session.
Clear explanation of variety of training activities although this could have been developed further or better justified.
Some thoughtful and perceptive analysis of the challenges in delivery of the training. Very good integration of the academic literature
Training aim and objectives identified but could be developed further.
Some training activities are described but further detail and justification for their choice is needed.
Some attempt has been made to analyse the challenges in training delivery, but its scope and depth are limited. Competent effort to integrate academic literature
Inadequate identification of training aim and session objectives.
Weak explanation and lack of justification for choice of training activities.
Only a weak attempt to critically analyse the challenges in training delivery. Limited effort to integrate academic literature
Very weak or insufficient attempt to identify training aim and session objectives.
Poor or no explanation and/or justification for the choice of training activities.
Lacks critical analysis of challenges in delivery of the training. No evidence of integrating academic literature.
Quality of writing and good academic practice The writing style is fluent and persuasive and no major grammatical/spelli ng errors.
Referencing is complete, accurate and follows the Harvard protocol. Writing style is clear with few grammatical/spelling errors. The referencing is accurate and complete for the most part and follows the Harvard protocol. Writing style is generally clear although there may be grammatical /spelling errors that detract from the meaning in places. Referencing does not always follow Harvard style and/or
there are some inaccuracies/omissions Writing style is unclear in places and this detracts from the content. Referencing does not follow Harvard style and/or there are major inaccuracies/omissions The work is poorly written and /or unclear. Major errors in referencing or a complete lack of reference to source material.
Formative feedback and support
Formative feedback provides opportunities to reflect on your ongoing work and preparation for your assignment. This is provided by both your tutor and peers during your weekly two-hour skills workshops; all students are timetabled to be able to attend one of these. Each workshop will include some practical activities, preparatory or reflective work for the relevant portfolio task.
Please use the following file format(s): .doc/.docx (please note that files submitted in formats associated with Apple Mac computers are not able to be opened and thus, not able to be marked). It is your responsibility to ensure that you submit your coursework in the appropriate format and as a single document/file.
All work should be word processed in 12-point font Calibri, Times New Roman or Arial and double-spaced.
The first page of your coursework must include:
Your student number
The module name and number
Title ‘Component B: Management Skills Portfolio’
Tasks 1, 2 and 3 each have a maximum limit of 600 words. Task 4 should adhere to the page limit (2 x A4).
This word count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists, etc.).
The references, bibliography and footnotes (provided footnotes only include references) are NOT included in this word count.
There is no direct penalty for exceeding the word count, but the marker WILL stop reading once the maximum word limit has been reached and nothing further will be taken into account in the allocation of marks.
You can view the UWE word count policy here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/aboutus/policies
Please adhere to the principles of good academic practice and ensure you reference all sources used when developing your assessment, using the UWE Harvard system. Failure to properly reference your work to original source material can be grounds for the assessment offence of plagiarism and may result in failure of the assessment or have more serious implications.
For further guidance on correct referencing go to:
Details of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found here:
For general guidance on how to avoid assessment offences see:
Instructions for submission
You must submit your assignment before the stated deadline by electronic submission through Blackboard. Notification that the electronic submission port al is open for your assignment is displayed (usually two weeks before the submission date) in the Coursework tab in myUWE, the Coursework tab in Blackboard and via an announcement in the Blackboard course.
Please allow sufficient time to upload your assignment, noting that the system becomes busier and slower as the deadline approaches. Only your final upload will be counted. Ensure all your information is submitted at one attempt to avoid ‘overwriting’ your intended submission. Always check and retain your receipts.
Late submission in the 24 hours following the deadline will be accepted but the assignment mark will be capped at 40%. Submissions after 24 hours will not be accepted. For full guidance on online submission through Blackboard, see:
Submissions of coursework by any other method (including a paper copy, on disk or by email) are NOT permissible for this module unless specifically agreed in advance of the submission date.
Before submitting your work, please ensure that:
You have proof read you work thoroughly to ensure your work is presented appropriately
You have addressed all the required elements of the assessment
You have referenced in accordance with the guidance provided
You have addressed each of the marking criterion
The submission is a single document and is in the correct format
Make sure you submit your own work and do not plagiarise from other sources or students. All modules within FBL have the option to use Safe Assign software. Safe Assign will compare your work to that of other students, current and past, as well as other materials available on the internet. UWE will act if Safe Assign suggests your work includes material that is ‘copied’ from other sources.
Final feedback and marks release
Students will normally receive marks and feedback on their submission within 20 working days of the submission deadline (not including any public holidays or university closure days). Any delay in returning students’ work will be communicated by the module leader via Blackboard.
Feedback on this module is not limited to the written comments you will receive on individual written assessment submissions.
Further Guidance and Support
General guidance on study skills:
Specific study skills pages relating to this module include:
Support from the FBL Academic Success Centre:
Guidance on UWE assessment regulations and terminology: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/assessmentsguide.aspx
Guidance on using the library: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/library/usingthelibrary.aspx
If you are experiencing difficulties in completing a piece of assessment on time due to unexpected circumstances (for example illness, accident, bereavement), you should seek advice from a Student Support Adviser at the earliest opportunity. Please note the module leader cannot grant personal circumstances or extensions.
Appointments with a student adviser can be made via an Information Point or online at:
The Student Support Adviser will advise as to whether you should submit an application for ‘Personal Circumstances (PCs)’, how to do so and what evidence is required to support the application.
Further details on PCs can be found here: