From your experience, describe and evaluate real-life scenarios where you have demonstrated that you have acquired the behaviour, skill or knowledge in each of the selected assessment criteria

Assessment Task

From your experience, describe and evaluate real-life scenarios where you have demonstrated that you have acquired the behaviour, skill or knowledge in each of the selected assessment criteria below. Inform your answer with wider reading to critically analyse your performance.

You may identify a different scenario for each assessment criteria or use a scenario to demonstrate up to any two assessment criteria. You could consider adopting the STAR approach when structuring your answer. If this approach is adopted the follow areas should be covered:

• Situation
• Task
• Action
• Result

The majority of words are likely to be allocated to the ‘action’ and ‘result’ parts of your answer.

AC 1.1

Make responsible decisions by considering different ethical perspectives. 

AC 1.2

Enable people to have a meaningful voice by involving them in decisions that impact them.

AC 1.3     

Self-evaluate personal integrity and professional courage in relation to ethical practice.     

AC 1.4

Collaborate across organisation boundaries, cultures and other disciplines, including the value of embracing difference.  

AC 2.1

Reflect on levels of self-awareness and self-management, leading to improved organisational success.

AC 2.2

Use business acumen to deliver commercial benefits and manage organisational resilience

AC 2.3

Demonstrate impactful behaviour that is aligned with wider organisational vision, values, strategies and plans.

AC 3.1

Demonstrate curiosity and passion for deep learning.

AC 3.2

Demonstrate continuing professional development that involves both planned learning and reflection.

AC 3.3

Network to enhance own career and contribution to organisational effectiveness.

AC 3.4

Share knowledge and learning to promote organisational success.

AC 4.1

Assess approaches to decision-making on complex issues, taking ownership to remedy mistakes.    

AC 4.2

Demonstrate appropriate influencing style to communicate and engage with different audiences.

AC 4.3

Promote organisational improvement through courage, political acumen and the willingness to challenge.

AC 4.4

Use and apply evidence-based critical thinking in your work

Marking Grid

Learners will receive a Pass, Merit, Distinction or Refer/Fail result at unit level.

Assessors must provide a mark from 1 to 4 for each Learning Outcome in the unit. Assessors should use the generic grade descriptor grid as guidance so they can provide comprehensive feedback that is developmental for learners. Please be aware that not all of the generic grade descriptors will be present in every learning outcome for all the assignments, so assessors must use their discretion in making grading decisions.

To pass the unit assessment learners must achieve a 2 (Pass) or above for each of the learning outcomes.

The overall mark achieved will dictate the Grade the learner receives for the Unit, provided NONE of the learning outcomes have been failed or referred.

Overall mark	Unit result
0 to 7	Refer / Fail
8 or 9	Pass
10 to 13	Merit
14 to 16	Distinction

Marking Guidance	REFER/FAIL / 1	PASS / 2	MERIT / 3	DISTINCTION / 4
Focus	An inadequate submission. Few aspects are covered effectively. Needs a much clearer focus on the assessment criteria.	A basic submission that addresses the assessment criteria accurately and generally thoroughly. No major omissions.	A good submission that addresses the assessment criteria accurately and thoroughly. No major omissions.	An outstanding submission that addresses all aspects of the assessment criteria in an accurate, clear, thorough and focused way. No major omissions.
Depth & breadth of understanding	Demonstrates inadequate knowledge and limited understanding of each requirement.	Demonstrates adequate knowledge and sufficient understanding of each requirement.	Demonstrates good knowledge and understanding of each requirement.	Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge and deep understanding of each requirement.
Strategic application & professional advice	Submission fails to address the requirements effectively at a managerial or strategic level. Needs more evidence of self-awareness.	Submission broadly addresses the requirements at a managerial and strategic level. Adequate self-awareness and critique.	Submission addresses the requirements almost always at a strategic level. Good self-awareness and critique.	Convincing business-focused submission that clearly address the requirements at a strategic level. Outstanding self-awareness and deep, and well-informed critique.
Research & wider reading	Needs to provide much more evidence of wider reading. Inadequate referencing.	Evidence of adequate wider reading which is well-applied. Adequate referencing.	Evidence of excellent wider reading which is well-applied. Detailed referencing.	Evidence of considerable and appropriate wider reading, which is excellently applied. Excellent referencing.
Persuasiveness & originality	Unconvincing. Claims are generally unsound, incomplete or without justification.	Presents ideas that are generally sound, but which are not always well followed through or well-supported.	Presents ideas that are generally sound and well supported.	Convincing ideas that are well supported. Evidence of original and insightful thinking.
Presentation & language	Poorly presented submission. Requires more structure and clearer language.	A satisfactory standard of presentation. Mostly clear and succinct.	An excellent standard of presentation. Clear and succinct in all areas.	An outstanding standard of presentation. Very clear and succinct – exceptionally well crafted.
Overall standard of the submission	A very poor submission in either content or presentation or both.	A sound submission in both content and presentation.	An excellent submission, in both content and presentation, that leaves the reader with few questions or doubts about the claims made.	An outstanding submission, in both content and presentation, that convinces the reader about the claims made.

Example Answer: (Plagiarised)

AC 1.1: Make Responsible Decisions by Considering Different Ethical Perspectives

Situation: While working as a team leader at a mid-sized UK-based technology company, I encountered a situation where the team was tasked with developing a new feature for our software product. The feature had the potential to collect a significant amount of user data, which could be used to improve the product through data analysis. However, the data collection raised ethical concerns regarding user privacy and data security.

Task: As the team leader, I was responsible for making a decision on whether to proceed with the development of the feature. The task was to balance the potential business benefits of implementing the feature with the ethical implications surrounding user privacy and data protection. This required me to consider different ethical perspectives and ensure that the decision would align with both legal requirements and the company’s ethical standards.

Action: I approached the decision-making process by first gathering as much information as possible. I consulted with the legal and compliance teams to understand the legal implications of data collection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is particularly stringent in the UK and the EU. I also engaged with the data security team to assess the risks of storing and handling the user data.

Next, I sought input from various stakeholders, including the marketing department, who were keen on using the data to tailor customer experiences, and the customer support team, who provided insights into potential customer concerns about privacy. This allowed me to understand the different perspectives and the potential impact on our users.

To further inform my decision, I conducted a thorough review of ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism, which focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number, and deontological ethics, which emphasizes the importance of following moral rules and principles, regardless of the outcome. Utilitarianism suggested that if the data could significantly enhance user experience and improve the product, it might justify the collection. On the other hand, deontological ethics highlighted the importance of respecting users` privacy and their right to control their own data, suggesting that we should only collect data with explicit consent and for purposes users clearly