Aim 

The aim of the assessment is to deliver an engaging podcast and understanding of social work leadership with your student peer. 

Instructions

Social work leadership 

Please follow the instructions to complete the group work podcast and reflective discussion.  

• You will record a podcast which will be 15 minutes in length.    This recording will be completed in pairs.  You will be randomly assigned to a group at the beginning of term.
•  You will reflect on what leadership means to you, considering your lived experience, personal assumptions, values, and identity.  
• You will reflect on the social, political, and historical development of leadership and how this has influence contemporary leadership today and how this may have influenced your understanding of leadership. 
• You are encouraged to complete the survey in week 1.  The results of the leadership survey can inform some of your discussion in the podcast.
• You are required to interview one social work leader each and discuss the insights gained with your student peer in the podcast.  You will require a consent form from the social worker you will be interviewing.
• You may wish to prepare some questions for the interview with the social work leader and then explore the responses in the podcast discussion.  Consider some of the following aspects for your podcast discussion. Did the social workers leader demonstrate leadership aligned with social work practice values and ethics? Did they refer to leadership theories or leadership skills? Did they discuss the challenges of leadership in human services? Were they able to identify the type of leader they are? Did you observe any incongruence between their leadership and social work values?
• What insights did you develop from the interviews, discussions with your student peer, and the survey about your own understanding of leadership and the type of leader you aspire to be?
• The podcast can be a general discussion, or you may decide to discuss specific topic areas, depending on the findings from your interview. 
• Please refer to the question prompts for the podcast on Moodle and information about how to create an engaging and interesting podcast.   
• Please refer to the instructions on Moodle on how to record a podcast and upload to Moodle. 
   

Please refer to marking criteria below

• Please note this assessment is valued at 30%
• 15% of the podcast criteria is a group work mark. 
• 15% of the podcast criteria is an individual mark.
• The combined mark will be added together for the overall mark. 

Critically evaluates leadership and how leadership is shaped by the socio-political historical context.  7.5 marks   Please note this is a group marked criteria.

Demonstrates an in-depth understanding of leadership theories and concepts, providing several diverse examples related to the socio-political and historical context, highlighting all aspects – social, political and historical.  7.5 – 6.375 marks 

Shows a strong understanding of leadership concepts with a few insight  and examples provided about the socio-political and historical context.   6.3 – 5.625 marks 

Demonstrates a general understanding of leadership but needs further depth with application of the social, political and historical concepts , including the use of examples. 5.55 – 4.88 marks 

Demonstrates adequate understanding of the leadership concepts in relation to the social, political and historical contexts, with the use of examples.   Stronger connections are needed.  4.8 – 3.25 marks 

Displays little to no understanding of leadership and the socio-political and historical context or has misunderstood the task.  <3.75 marks 

Critically evaluates how personal beliefs and experiences shape and influence an understanding of leadership, providing personal examples.  7.5 marks   Please note this is an individually marked criteria. 

Advanced critical analysis of how personal experiences and beliefs inform an understanding of leadership.  Insights are highlight reflective and well supported by theory. Cites excellent examples that demonstrate an excellent understanding. 7.5 – 6.375 marks 

Engages in strong critical reflection, with good reflection and theoretical connections.  Some areas could be further expanded.  Cites very good examples that demonstrate a very good thoughtful connection to personal experiences and beliefs. 6.3 – 5.625 marks 

Demonstrates developing critical reflection with some connections to leadership theory.  Reflection may benefit from deeper exploration or additional theoretical engagement.  Uses examples that are general requiring additional depth. 5.55 – 4.88 marks 

Reflection is in the early stage of development, with limited analysis and connection to leadership theory.  Examples are minimal, unclear or do not fully illustrate leadership concepts.  4.8 – 3.25 marks 

Demonstrates a lack of awareness of critical analysis and thinking.  The presenting issues are not clearly stated; information is not interpreted; evidence is considered fact without question; and implications considered are simplistic. Cites unsatisfactory examples and fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding <3.25 marks 

Critically examines the leadership of two social workers, examining the type of leader they are, the leadership theories they utilise, the challenges of social work leadership, and the insights and new learnings gained from them. 7.5 marks   Please note this is an individually marked criteria. 

Provides a sophisticated analysis of the leadership styles of two social workers, demonstrating a deep understanding of their leadership characteristics and how they apply leadership theories in practice. The discussion is well-integrated, insightful, and strongly supported by relevant theoretical frameworks.  7.5 -3.75 marks 

Examines the leadership styles of two social workers effectively, making strong connections to leadership theories. Some areas could be expanded or more critically explored to strengthen theoretical application.  6.3 – 5.625 marks

Identifies leadership styles and references leadership theories, though analysis may require further depth or clarity. Some connections to theoretical perspectives are present but could be more fully developed.  5.55 – 4.88 marks

Demonstrates an emerging understanding of leadership styles with limited or minimal engagement with leadership theories. Strengthening the integration of theory and analysis would enhance clarity and depth.  4.8 – 3.25 marks

Has not understood the requirements or content. <3.5 marks 

Aim:

To develop a comprehensive understanding and critically analyse  the impact of managerialism in the delivery of human services. To critically reflect on how to balance these challenges in a peer discussion.

Instructions:

• One student argues that managerialism increases efficiency, accountability, and productivity, examining managerialism, governance and marketisation in a social work context.  (5 minutes)
• The other student argues that it erodes social work autonomy and ethics and impacts negatively on clients in a social work context. (5  minutes)
• The first student provides a counterargument and summary to the second student. (2.5 minutes)
• The second speaker provides a counterargument and summary to the first student.  (2.5 minutes)
• Students reflect on how different leadership styles could balance these concerns referring to the leadership theories and styles learnt in the unit.  (5 minute discussion in pairs)
• Refer to Moodle for more detailed instructions on the assessment. 

Please refer to the marking criteria

You will receive an individual mark for this assessment based on your performance in the group work. 

Demonstrates understanding and the ability to critically analyse managerialism, governance and marketisation in social work practice (10 marks)

Demonstrates deep understanding of all concepts, critically engaging with both strengths and limitations. Uses well-researched evidence.  Strong counter argument with depth of understanding.   10 - 8.5 marks 

Strong understanding with an understanding of most of the concepts with some critical engagement and evidence and minor gaps in analysis and understanding of concepts.  Strong counter-argument with some gaps in argument.  8.49 - 7.5 marks 

General understanding the concepts demonstrated with some gaps.  Greater depth of critical analysis required to strengthen argument.    Some evidence used.   Counter-argument requires further depth.  7.49 - 6.5 marks 

Basic understanding with further depth of analysis needed.  Greater clarity required of concepts with several gaps in understanding.   Stronger evidence required.  Counter-argument lacks convincing argument with further understanding of the concepts and criticaly analysis needed.  6.49 - 5 marks 

Minimal or incorrect understanding, lacks analysis and supporting evidence.  No counter-argument provided or argument is irrelevant. < 5 marks 

Argumentation & Debate Skills (5 marks)

Presents a well-structured, persuasive argument with strong evidence. Anticipates and responds to counterarguments effectively.  5 - 4.25 marks 

Presents a strong argument with relevant evidence. Some counter-argument engagement.  4.25 - 3.75marks 

Presents a clear argument with some evidence, but requires greater depth of analysis or counter-argument engagement.  3,74 - 3.25 marks 

Argument is basic with stronger evidence and stronger  counter-argument needed.  3.24 - 2.5 marks

Argument is unclear, unstructured, or lacks relevant evidence and/or the task has been misunderstood.  <2.5 marks

Reflection and Engagement in Discussion (10 marks)

Thoughtful, critical reflection on both perspectives in discussion, informed by relevant leadership theories and approaches. Actively engages and builds on peers' ideas.  10 - 8.5 marks 

Strong reflection and engagement, with some critical thinking,  informed by leadership theories and approaches .  8.49 - 7.5 marks 

Participates in discussion and reflects a little, informed by leadership theories and approaches, but greater depth is needed.  7.49 - 6.5 marks 

Limited engagement or basic reflection requiring further depth,  with greater consideration of leadership theories and approaches required.   6.49 - 5 marks 

Has not engaged with the task and is missing reflection.  < 5marks 

Clarity, Structure, and Delivery ( 5 marks)

Clear, confident, and well-structured delivery. Engaging and persuasive tone.  5 -4.25 marks 

Well-structured and confident, occasional hesitations.  4,25 - 3.75 marks 

Mostly clear, but some issues with structure or delivery (e.g., reading too much from notes).  3.74 - 3.25 marks 

At times the argument is unclear due to structure or delivery issues.  3.24 - 2.5 marks 

Unclear, unstructured, lacks confidence, or has misunderstood the content and/or task. <2.5 marks   

Aim 

You will develop an understanding of contemporary trends in managerialism and leadership approaches in relation to contemporary challenges in human service delivery in Australia. 

Instructions 

 Please follow the steps below to complete your assessment task: 

• Select one (1) of the three case studies to examine. The case studies can be found on Moodle in the Assessment Block. 
• Critically examine managerial concepts. including managerialism, governance and marketisation, identifying their impact (positive and/or negative) and how these should be addressed.  
• Identify a social work leadership response to the scenario utilising relevant leadership theories. 
• Critically examine leadership theories that are relevant to your response, describing two theories, there relevance to the case scenario, and their benefits in addressing the situation.
• As part of your leadership response, you will consider the social work ethical issues in the case scenario and propose an ethical social work leadership approach to address them, citing relevant ethics and dilemmas to demonstrate your understanding and critical analysis.  

Literature and references 

In this assessment you may use a range of contemporary and older references to support your discussion.  It is expected that you refer to a minimum of 15 references for this assessment.   You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the five elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as from government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian Association of Social Workers. 

Requirements  

• Use a conventional and legible size 12 font, such as Times New Roman, with 2.0 line spacing and 2.54cm page margins (standard pre-set margin in Microsoft Word). 
• Include page numbers on the top right side of each page in a header. 
• Use academic language in your writing. 
• Use the seventh (7th) edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. The CQUniversity Academic Learning Centre has an online CQU APA Referencing Style Guide.
• The word count is considered from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusion. The word count excludes the reference list but includes in-text references and direct quotations. 
• Complete an AI Declaration and attach it to your Cover Page. 

Resources 

• You can use unit provided materials and other credible sources (e.g. journal articles, books) to reference your argument. The quality and credibility of your sources are important.
• We recommend that you access your discipline specific library guide: the ; Social Work and Community Services Guide.
• We recommend you use EndNote to manage your citations and reference list. More information on how to use EndNote is available at the CQUniversity Library website.
• For information on academic communication please go to the Academic Learning Centre Moodle site. The Academic Communication section has many helpful resources including information for students with English as a second language. 
  Submit a draft before the due date to review your Turnitin Similarity Score before making a final submission. 

AI

The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) tools, including AI-driven writing assistants and content generators, is not permitted in the assessments in the unit. This social work practice standard is based on the requirement for students to demonstrate essential human capacities, skills, and knowledge crucial for social work practice as outlined by the Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS, 2021). Social work relies on human interaction, empathy, ethical decision-making, and effective communication—skills that cannot be adequately assessed through AI-generated content. To ensure the integrity and development of these capabilities, students must verify that any grammar or writing enhancement programs used do not incorporate AI components. Compliance with this social work practice standard is vital for meeting ASWEAS graduate attributes and preparing for professional practice. 

Please complete the AI Declaration located on the Moodle site and submit it with your assessment. 

Refer to the marking criteria.

Demonstrates an understanding of managerialism, marketisation and governance by providing accurate descriptions of these concepts.   The assessment demonstrates original thought, critical engagement with the topic, and a personalised writing style that reflects the student’s own understanding.    10 marks 

Exemplary understanding. Shows meticulous attention to detail and accurately describes all concepts.   The assessment demonstrates excellent personalised writing that reflects the student’s voice and understanding, supported by high quality of references.  10 - 8.5 marks 

Very good understanding of the concepts, with due attention to detail and only some minor gaps. The assessment demonstrates very good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student voice and understanding, with legitimate and relevant citations.  8.49 - 7.5 marks 

Good effort attending to understanding of the concepts although some parts of the concepts are misunderstood.  The assessment demonstrates good, personalised, writing that mostly reflects the student voice, with some anomalies in writing and referencing. 7.49 – 6.5 marks 

Satisfactory effort defining concepts, with some gaps and errors in understanding .  The student’s writing demonstrates some evidence of their personal writing style and voice, but also indicates some unusual citation practices and references may not exist or do not match the material. The writing is generic, formal or unusual in parts.  6.49 – 5 marks 

Submission is missing key aspects of the task or task requirements have been misunderstood.  The writing is generic, lacks context and relevance to the content, and the references do not exist or do not match the material.  < 5 marks 

Critically evaluates how managerialism impacts on human service organisations and discusses the implication of these trends relevant to the case scenario.   The assessment demonstrates original thought, critical engagement with the topic, and a personalised writing style that reflects the student’s own understanding.    5 marks  

Evaluation critically and logically assimilates evidence from multiple diverse sources to provide insights into the impact of managerialism in human services work and the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates excellent personalised writing that reflects the student’s voice, with high quality references.  5 -4.25 marks 

Evaluation logically assimilates evidence from multiple sources to explain the impact of managerialism on human services work and the case scenario.   The assessment demonstrates good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice with some anomalies in writing and referencing. 4.24 – 3.75 marks 

Evaluation assimilates some evidence from sources to identify strengths and limitations to explain the impact of managerialism on human services work and the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student voice, with some anomalies in writing and referencing.  3.74 – 3.25 marks 

Strengths and limitations about marketisation are evaluated with sufficient evidence and the case scenario.  The student’s writing demonstrates some personal writing style and voice, but also indicates unusual citation practices or generic, overly formal writing. 3.24 – 2.5 marks 

Limitations and strengths of each approach are poorly identified, or insufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate understanding.  Submission is missing aspects of task or task requirements have been misunderstood.  The writing is unusual, generic, and lacks context and relevance to the content.  The references may not exist or do not match.  <2.5 marks 

Critically evaluates the impact of marketisation on human service organisations and discusses the implication of these trends relevant to the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates original thought, critical engagement with the topic, and a personalised writing style that reflects the student’s own understanding.  5 marks 

Evaluation critically and logically assimilates diverse sources to provide insightful explanations of marketisation impacts on human services work and the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates excellent personalised writing that reflects the student’s voice, with high quality references. 5 - 4.25 marks 

Evaluation logically assimilates evidence from multiple areas to explain the impact of marketisation in human services work and the case scenario.   The assessment demonstrates very good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice. with legitimate and relevant references.  4.24 – 3.75 marks 

Evaluation assimilates some evidence to discuss the strengths and limitations of the impact of marketisation on human services work and the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice, with minor inconsistencies in writing and referencing. 3.74 - 3.25 marks

Evaluation of the strengths and limitations of marketisation with sufficient evidence. The writing reflects some personalised writing but also includes unusual citation practices or generic, overly formal writing, and several inconsistencies in referencing. 3.24 – 2.5 marks 

Limitations and strengths of each approach are poorly identified, or insufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate understanding.   The submission is missing aspects of the task, or the task requirements have been misunderstood.  The writing is generic, lacks context and relevance to the content. and some references do not exist or do not match the content.  <2.5 marks 

Critically evaluates how governance impacts on human service organisations and discusses the implication of these trends in relation to the case scenario. The assessment demonstrates original thought, critical engagement with the topic, and a personalised writing style that reflects student’s own understanding.   5 marks 

Evaluation critically and logically assimilates evidence from multiple diverse areas to provide insightful and detailed explanations of the impact of governance on human services work and the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates excellent personalised writing that reflects the student’s voice and understanding with high quality references.  5 -4.25 marks 

Evaluation logically assimilates evidence from multiple sources to explain the impact of governance in human services. The assignment demonstrates very good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice and understanding with legitimate and relevant citations and the case scenario. 4.24 – 3.75 marks

Evaluation assimilates some evidence from sources to discuss the strengths and limitations of the impact of governance on human services work and the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice, with some inconsistencies in writing and referencing.  3.74- 3.25 marks 

Evaluation of the strengths and limitations about governance with sufficient evidence for the impact in human services work and the case scenario.   The assessment demonstrates some evidence of their personal writing style and voice, but also indicates some generic, very formal and unusual writing, with numerous inconsistencies in writing and referencing. 3.24 – 2.5 marks 

Limitations and strengths of each approach are poorly identified, or insufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate understanding.   Submission is missing aspects of task or task requirements have been misunderstood.  The writing is generic, lacks context and relevance to the content, and the references do not exist or do not match the content.    <2.5 marks 

Critically evaluates the social work values and ethics in the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates original thought, critical engagement with the topic, and a personalised writing style that reflects student’s own understanding.   10 marks 

Provides several major reflections or insights about the impact of managerialism, grounded in social work values and ethics in relation to the case scenario. The assessment demonstrates excellent personalised writing that reflects the student’s voice. with high quality of references.  10-8.5 marks 

Provides a few strong reflections about the impact of managerialism, grounded in social work values and ethics in relation to the case scenario.  The assessment demonstrates very good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice, with legitimate and relevant references. 8.49 – 7.5 marks 

Presents some reflections on the impact of managerialism grounded in social work values and ethics in relation to the case scenario.   The assessment demonstrates good, personalised writing that demonstrates mostly the student voice with minor inconsistencies in writing and referencing.  7.49 – 6.5 marks 

Provides at least one reflection about the impact of managerialism grounded in social work values and ethics in relation to the case scenario. The student’s writing demonstrates some evidence of their personal writing style and voice, but also shows some citation issues or generic, overly formal writing. 6.49 – 5 marks 

The reflection lacks relevance, is incongruent with social work practice and/or the analysis is missing or misunderstood. Submission is missing aspects of task or task requirements have been misunderstood.  The writing is generic, lacks context and relevance to the content, and references do not exist or do not match the content.   < 5 marks 

Identifies opportunities to promote social work values and ethics within the constraints of managerial approaches in relation to the case scenario. The assessment demonstrates original thought, critical engagement with the topic, and a personalised writing style that reflects student’s own understanding.    5 marks 

Identifies several strategic opportunities that align with social work values and ethics and are directly related to the managerial challenges identified in relation to the case scenario.   The assessment demonstrates excellent personalised writing that reflects the student’s voice and understanding, supported by high quality references. 5 -4.25 marks 

Identifies a few practical opportunities based on social work values and ethics, which are related to the managerial challenges identified in relation to the case scenario. The assessment demonstrates very good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice and understanding. With legitimate and relevantcitations.4.24 – 3.75 marks 

Identifies relevant opportunities within the organisational context that align with social work values and ethics in relation to the case scenario. The assessment demonstrates good, personalised writing that mostly reflects the student’s voice, with some inconsistencies in writing and referencing. 3.74 – 3.25 marks 

Identifies opportunities that have some relevance to the organisational context and are loosely based on social work values and ethics in relation to the case scenario. The student’s writing demonstrates some personal engagement but also includes unusual citation practices, or generic overly  formal writing. 3.24 – 2.5 marks 

Identifies opportunities that are either not relevant or un relate to the organisational context.  The submission is missing key aspects of task or task requirements have been misunderstood. The writing is generic, lacks context and relevance to the content, and the references do not exist or do not match the content.  <2.5marks