44-409362-AF Understanding People & Cultures L4 Individual Assessment Brief 2025

44-409362-AF Assessed Module Learning Outcomes

LO 1 – Explain equality, diversity and inclusion and how it impacts upon global legislation and working relationships
LO 2 – Apply the concepts of cross-cultural awareness, communication and management to diverse business environments in the UK and internationally
LO 3 – Identify and apply the tools available to line managers and HR professionals to create an inclusive working environment.
LO 4 – Demonstrate an understanding of the concepts of responsible, inclusive and ethical leadership within a global context

Cultural Intelligence, Diversity, and Ethical Communication: Managing Power, Conflict, and Sustainability in Multinational Teams

44-409362-AF Assessment Overview:

This assessment challenges students to explore the complexities of managing multinational teams in a global business environment. Students will analyse the role of Cultural Intelligence (CQ), diversity, and ethical communication in fostering effective collaboration. They will identify common challenges in cross-cultural management, such as communication barriers, power dynamics, and conflict, and propose strategies that promote inclusion, ethical practices, and sustainable team dynamics.

The final output will be a 15-minute video presentation demonstrating an understanding of the critical factors shaping team management in diverse global contexts.

Are You Looking for Answer of 44-409362-AF Level 4 Individual Assessment

Order Non Plagiarized Assignment

44-409362-AF Assessment Scenario:

Global Dynamics Ltd., a multinational organisation specializing in renewable energy solutions, is expanding its operations across Asia, Europe, and South America. The company’s diverse workforce includes employees from over 20 countries, with varied cultural backgrounds, languages, and work practices. As part of the expansion, the organization has identified several challenges, including:

Misalignment in understanding cultural norms and workplace behaviours.
Language and communication barriers affecting team collaboration.
Power imbalances and conflicts within cross-cultural teams.
Difficulty in aligning team practices with the company’s sustainability and ethical goals.

The HR team at Global Dynamics Ltd. has hired you as a consultant to address these challenges and propose strategies to foster better team dynamics while maintaining the organisation’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and ethical, sustainable practices.

Assessment Tasks (15-Minute Video Presentation):

Please choose one of the following for your presentation:

Cultural Foundations and Diversity: Explain how culture, language, and primary socialisation influence multinational teams, and highlight the importance of diversity, inclusion, and ethical practices.
Challenges in Global Team Management: Identify organisational and HRM challenges, including cultural differences, communication barriers, power dynamics, and conflict in multinational teams.
Strategies for Effective Management: Propose strategies to enhance CQ, cross-cultural communication, and sustainable practices, focusing on fostering inclusion, reducing conflict, and promoting ethical team collaboration.

Assessment Criteria of 44-409362-AF:

Criterion	Outstanding (93 – 100%)	Excellent (70–92%)	Very Good (60–69%)	Good (50–59%)	Adequate (40–49%)	Inadequate (6–39%)	Zero (0-5)
Knowledge and Understanding (30%)	Demonstrates an exceptional depth of knowledge, with insightful analysis and a comprehensive grasp of the subject. The content is consistently accurate, relevant, and supported by scholarly rigour.	Exhibits a well-rounded and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, with accurate and well-developed content.	Shows a solid understanding of the subject, although certain areas may lack detail or critical depth.	Demonstrates a basic level of understanding, with some inaccuracies or superficial analysis.	Displays limited understanding, with noticeable gaps in knowledge or reliance on generalities.	Reveals minimal or no understanding of the subject. The content is largely inaccurate, superficial, or irrelevant.	Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases.
Application of Knowledge (25%)	Applies knowledge with originality and critical insight, demonstrating clear connections to practical or real-world contexts. Analysis is highly effective and contextually appropriate.	Applies knowledge effectively, with relevant and logical connections to practice or real-world examples.	Demonstrates adequate application of knowledge, though connections to practice or examples may lack depth or specificity.	Applies knowledge in a superficial manner, with limited relevance to practical or contextual considerations.	Makes vague or minimal attempts to apply knowledge, with unclear or inconsistent relevance to the task.	Fails to apply knowledge meaningfully. Practical connections or examples are absent, unclear, or inappropriate.	Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases.
Use of Theory and Evidence (20%)	Integrates a wide range of highly relevant theories and evidence, critically evaluating and applying them to support arguments. Theories are clearly explained, supported with practical examples, and references which are provided verbally during the presentation and on slides. Referencing adheres fully to APA 7th style conventions.	Applies relevant theories and evidence effectively, demonstrating strong understanding and integration into arguments. Theories are clearly mentioned and supported by examples. Verbal and slide references are included, with a reference slide summarising key sources. Referencing is accurate, with minor inconsistencies in APA 7th style.	Uses appropriate theories and evidence to support arguments, but with limited critical evaluation or application. Theories are mentioned and supported by some examples or case studies, but references may lack consistency or depth.	References some theories and evidence, but connections to arguments or relevance are underdeveloped. Limited verbal or slide citations may be present, and examples or applications lack depth or specificity. Referencing contains errors or lacks coherence.	Demonstrates minimal use of theories or evidence, with weak connections to arguments and tenuous relevance to International Business and HRM. References are inconsistent or unclear, and examples are superficial.	Fails to use relevant theories or evidence, with unsupported arguments and no meaningful application to International Business or HRM. Citations and examples are absent. Referencing is incorrect, incomplete, or entirely absent.	Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases.
Structure, Organisation, and Clarity (15%)	Demonstrates exceptional organisation, with ideas presented in a logical and coherent sequence. Visual aids are engaging, purposeful, and enhance understanding.	Presentation is well-structured and coherent, with effective use of visuals to support key points.	Presentation is adequately structured, with some use of visuals that contribute to overall clarity.	Presentation exhibits basic organisation, but flow and clarity are inconsistent. Visual aids are used minimally.	Lacks clear organisation and logical flow. Visual aids, if used, are weak or ineffective.	Presentation is poorly organised, incoherent, and lacks logical progression. Visual aids are absent or irrelevant.	Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases.
Communication and Engagement (10%)	Delivery is exceptionally engaging, confident, and articulate. The presenter demonstrates a strong command of the topic and maintains the audience’s attention throughout.	Delivery is clear, confident, and engaging, maintaining audience interest.	Delivery is adequate, with some engagement. The presenter conveys the material but may lack enthusiasm or fluency.	Delivery lacks clarity or confidence. Audience engagement is limited, and the presenter occasionally struggles to convey ideas effectively.	Delivery is unclear or lacks engagement. The presenter shows minimal effort to connect with the audience or sustain their attention.	Delivery is disengaging, unclear, or incoherent. The presenter fails to maintain audience interest or communicate ideas effectively