I am presenting the Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers ( This is my part) . 3 slides each Use of minimal text – around 125 – 150 words max per slide, but much fewer words can be very effective – all slides must be easily legible which means around 20 point font minimum.
Lehman Brothers
through reading, web search and analysis to present a fresh analysis of governance failure in a major corporation. This can be an historical case or a more contemporary case for example drawn from the cu
ent crisis among companies in the finance sector as Lehman Brothers. There are extensive web references relating to many of these corporate failures available, but you should go beyond these to discover more recent corporate or academic data if possible. With corporate governance cases go beyond an analysis of the formal structure and processes of the company corporate governance system, the capability of the CEO and board, and the performance of the company, to the business values, objectives, behaviour and relationships of corporate governance that exist in the companies studied In sustainability cases the analysis needs to go beyond the formal CSR policies of the company, and any official corporate reports on disasters, and include consideration of wider stakeholder analysis of the causes and consequences of social and environmental disasters. Your case analysis should be to a maximum of 15 slides including a final slide with full references. Each member of the group must contribute a specific part of the analysis and present on this, but assessment will be based on the coherence and quality of the presentation as a whole.
While the emphasis is upon a forensic analysis of the reasons for corporate governance failure, this encompasses a
ief analysis of the origins and development of the company, its strategic direction, and strengths and weaknesses, and a focus upon the company financial performance. This sets the scene for the analysis of the management and governance approach and how the company failed. The role of regulators is relevant, and in some cases a comparison of the governance of the company and codes of governance principles.
Group Preparation of Assignment
Stage 1
SEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Allocate group members to specific tasks. For example:
Chair – coordinates the case preparation and presentation
CEO – examines the core strategy and business model of the company
CFO/Audit – analyses the finances of the company, and where they failed
Co-Sec – analyses the governance and sustainability (if relevant) failures of the company
Independent Director – examines the relations with key stakeholders – regulators, shareholders, customers, employees etc
Search for data on case and preliminary analysis.
Stage 2
FOCUSED SEARCH AND
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Continue search in more focused way for useful data.
Begin comprehensive analysis of company business model and where went wrong.
Critical analysis of financial performance of company
Exploration of governance failures
Analysis of relationship with key stakeholders and how these failed
Stage 3
SYNTHESIS
AND WRITING
Synthesise all of the elements of the analysis togethe
Decide on which elements will be emphasised with relevant material
Begin assembling the presentation
Use of minimal text – around 125 – 150 words max per slide, but much fewer words can be very effective – all slides must be easily legible which means around 20 point font minimum
Maximum use of clear and readable figures, tables, graphics, and short 30 second to 1 minute video segments
The final reference page can be small font 10 point if required, as it will only be read in detail by assessor – around 20 references is good, do not include additional references just to add weight
Stage 4
REHEARSAL AND PRESENTATION
Ensure you have a well-constructed and coherent draft of the case analysis.
Allocate an order of presentation and rehearse your individual contribution. Then rehearse as a group.
Think of the presentation as a TV audition
Enjoy the occasion, which means knowing your material to be confident in its presentation.
The chair introduces each member of the group and what they will be presenting on “finance” etc, then the chair makes a
ief introduction and hands over to the next presenter.
When you finish you can
eathe a sigh of relief. But then comes the most important part of the presentation – can you respond in an informed and confident way to the 5 minutes of questions and comments from the class?
Assessment Criteria Assignment 1
Governance and Sustainability
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA – Assignment 1
Group Report and Presentation - Forensic analysis of corporate governance failure. Weight: 30%
(
These Assessment Criteria Relate to the substance of the Subject Outline and Subject Learning Objectives (SLOs 1,2,3) set out on page one of the Subject Outline,
Weighting
Group Work
Group presents as well informed on governance and institutional structures and processes, effectively organised and demonstrates the ability to collaborate effectively and to communicate appropriately to the audience.
3
Presentation
Clear, fluent, analytical, interesting and succinct delivery by group members of the cases analysis. Well-presented and logical structure to slides. Questions well handled.
6
Content
Presentation draws from a depth of research, acquired knowledge and a range of relevant references, so that the topic is analysed in depth. Governance issues are clearly and coherently identified and detailed.
12
Argument and Analysis
Rigorous critical analysis of the case, demonstrating understanding of key concepts of governance, convincing explanation/argument, original and creative thought.
9
TOTAL MARKS
100% = 30
Subject & Assignment Grading applied to all assignments:
High Distinction 85%
Outstanding material, in terms of depth, academic research, richness of reflections and ability to connect theory and practice. The entire work is flawless. Typically, HDs are rare.
Distinction 75%-84%
Excellent critical and analytical work supported by in-depth research. Insightful reflection and very good ability to connect theory and practice. No grammatical, referencing e
ors.
Credit 65%-74%
Very Good work. No grammatical, referencing e
ors. Written at a high postgraduate level – MASTERS level.
Pass 50%-64%
Higher Pass: Good work. Demonstrated a satisfactory level of critical thinking and analysis. All elements of the assignment are covered well. There are no e
ors in any aspect of the logistics of the presentation, as stated in the subject outline.
Lower Pass: The student completed ALL aspects of the assignment at a satisfactory level.
Fail 0-49%
The assignment lacks depth, research, analytical thought, and critical analysis of the material. Limited reflection. Lack of connection between theory and practice. Little attention is paid to the requirements of the assignment. If Student is shown to have plagiarised (instant fail may be awarded= 0).