7WBS2007-0901-2025 Human Resource Management Assignment 2 Brief 2025, Singapore

Module Title:

Module Code:

0901-2025

Cross-Cultural HRM (3000 words)

70%

Date: 5^th November 2025

Assessment Criteria

•       Assess the role and scope of people management practices and activities.

•       Appraise the main contextual factors impacting on people management.

•       Evaluate the main strategic approaches to people management.

•       Analyse a range of people management issues and make relevant proposals to address them, both individually and working collaboratively.

E.g. Use LinkedIn Learning to improve skills

Global businesses face people-management challenges across different cultural and institutional environments. Common problems include failed expatriate postings, complex global talent moves, and leading diverse international teams. These situations create tension between “one global HR way” and what actually works locally.

In this assignment you will:

•       Use a country lens: Identify 1–2 HRM issues in your own country that make cross-border people management harder for international organisations.

Examples: hiring in a highly regulated labour market, performance management that clashes with local norms, reward practices shaped by law or custom, expatriation/repatriation hurdles, or diversity and inclusion challenges.

•       Pick one cross-cultural HRM scenario: choose one of the following and link it to your country issues:

1.    Expatriate assignment failure

2.    Global talent mobility

3.    Managing diverse international teams (including remote/hybrid)

•       Use AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, or an HR simulator) to generate solutions such as training modules, onboarding materials, relocation policies, conflict-resolution approaches, or support systems.

•       Benchmark the AI against peer-reviewed research in cross-cultural HRM/international management and professional guidance (For instance, CIPD, SHRM, credible case studies).

•       Reflect on limits: Show where AI oversimplifies or misses cultural nuance, legal specifics, and ethical issues.

•       Propose a decision framework: Explain when AI-generated insights are helpful and when human expertise is essential.

Why this matters

Suggested Scaffolded Structure

1. Introduction (400 words)

Introduce your chosen HRM scenario (for instance expatriate failure, global mobility, or managing diverse teams) remember you can include any HRM Scenario of your choice, but it is important you provide adequate evidence.

•       State your country focus and why it matters in cross-cultural HRM.

•       Outline the purpose: testing AI solutions against theory and human judgment.

•       why is this issue worth studying? Provide adequate Justification

2. Country HRM Issues (400 words)

•       Show how these issues connect to your chosen scenario.

•       Reflective on; How do these issues play out in your context? What has worked or failed in practice?

3.  AI-Generated Solutions (400 words)

•       Summarise AI’s suggested solutions

•       Comment on your first impressions: did AI provide practical, culturally aware ideas, or was it too generic?

•       Reflective thinking: How did you feel about using AI? Did it surprise you, or did it confirm expectations?

4.  Evaluation: AI vs Theory and Practice (800 words)

•       Compare AI’s outputs with academic theories (for instance, Hofstede, Trompenaars, GLOBE, Institutional Theory, SHRM).

•       Contrast with professional guidance (CIPD, SHRM, case studies).

•       Identify alignments and gaps.

•       Evaluative thinking: Which approach is stronger, and why? Do AI’s outputs hold up against research and professional standards?

5.  Reflection on AI’s Limits (400 words)

•       Show where AI fell short: cultural nuance, legal details, ethics, or bias.

•       Use examples from outputs to demonstrate oversimplification or error.

•       Reflective thinking: What did you learn about AI’s limitations through this task? How would this affect your own practice as an HR professional?

6.  Framework for Practice (300 words)

•       Provide a clear, practical decision framework (table, diagram, or bullet list):

•       When AI can help?

•       When humans are essential?

•       Why does your framework make sense? What are its strengths and possible weaknesses?

7.  Conclusion (300 words)

•       Summarise the main findings.

•       Re-state AI as a support tool, not a replacement.

•       Emphasise what this means for the future of HRM practice.

•       What is the “big lesson” for you and for organisations?

Refences (Peer reviewed Journals, CIPD, Government, Business annual reports) 8. Appendix

•       Full AI prompts and outputs.

•       Short note on your process: what you learned about working with AI.

Marking Criteria

1.  Use of Theory and Country Evidence (25%)

•       Identify 1–2 HRM challenges in your country clearly.

•       Apply at least two HRM theories/models to explain why those challenges matter in the chosen scenario.

•       Use country-specific evidence (e.g., legislation, data, reports, examples).

2.  Critical Evaluation (25%) 

•       Judge the quality of AI’s advice: Where is it useful? Where is it shallow or misleading?

•       Show clear reasoning when deciding which insights (AI, theory, or practice) are stronger.

3.  Reflection and Framework (20%)

•       Reflect on what you learned by using AI. Be specific (e.g., “AI ignored gender norms in my country’s labour law”).

•       Build a simple, practical framework (e.g., a table, flowchart, or bullet list) that shows:

ü  When AI can help HR work.

ü  When human expertise must take over.

4.  Writing and Referencing (10%)

•       Write in a clear, structured way using the scaffold

•       Use proper Harvard referencing for theories, articles, and professional guidance.

5.  AI Use and Transparency (20%)

•       Where it shows up in your report: AI Outputs section + Appendix

•       Summarise AI outputs clearly in the main report.

•       Put full prompts and outputs in the appendix.

•       Reflect on how you used AI and how you checked its accuracy.

Any specific instructions:

The HBS Grading Criteria (rubric) will evidence how marks are awarded for individual parts of

the assignment i.e. Presentation and Structure, Intellectual Curiosity and Referencing, Content, Analysis,

Discussion

Use of Generative AI

Category 1 – Authorised use of AI

You are permitted to use genAI tools to create content for your work and to proofread your work. Alternatively, you may use a proofreader or non-genAI proofreading service.

Category 2 – Proofreading only permitted

You are permitted to use genAI tools (or a proofreader or proofreading service) to proofread your work, but you are not permitted to use AI tools to create content. This applies even if the assessment includes marks for English and grammar.

Category 3 – AI use not permitted

You are not permitted to use genAI tools for content creation or proofreading. This category applies where all or most marks are awarded for language proficiency (including spelling, punctuation, and grammar).

For this assignment, you are allowed to use GenAI tools to create content.

Students must comply with the category selected for this assessment. Improper or undeclared use of AI tools may be considered academic misconduct.

Use & presentation of Harvard

Referencing

Findings/

Definitions/

Calculations

Application &

Integration of

Data/Literature

/Critical evaluation

&/or Reflection

amend to

suit

(introduction, country HRM issues, AI- generated solutions, evaluation,

reflection, framework, conclusion, references, appendix). Students must stick to this layout, with word allocations already provided, otherwise coherence will collapse. Marks here will reward clear headings, logical flow, and observance of the 3,000-word limit. Good reports should signpost arguments (e.g., linking “country HRM issues”

directly into the AI vs. theory section), and avoid padding.

The brief demands strict application of Harvard style for both in-text citations and reference list. That means page numbers for direct quotes, consistent formatting of journal titles, italics for books, and correct ordering. Students should also reference AI use transparently in the appendix. Sloppy or inconsistent referencing (missing years, incorrect punctuation) will undermine marks in this section.

The brief explicitly requires peer- reviewed journals, CIPD/SHRM guidance, government reports, and credible business examples. Students cannot lean on generic websites or only AI outputs. Quality will be judged by range, depth, and recency of sources. A strong submission

will integrate multiple theoretical lenses (e.g.,

Hofstede, GLOBE, institutional theory) and apply them critically to context. Weak submissions will only cite textbooks or rely on AI without triangulation.

Minimum of 20 peer-reviewed journals

(e.g., expatriate failure, global talent mobility). Content should demonstrate accurate understanding of cross-cultural HRM

debates and how

AI’s input aligns (or misaligns) with them. Findings must come not just from AI outputs but from comparison with practice and academic literature.

or real corporate cases. Application means not just

stating Hofstede’s dimensions but

showing how they

complicate, for instance, performance management in Japan vs. UK. Strong report will integrate theory, country evidence, and AI outputs seamlessly into

a single discussion. Weak report will keep them in silos.

with specific, contextualised evidence from research and practice. The “framework for practice” is where reflection turns into a tangible outcome.

90 – 100

Outstanding

with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures &appendices.

Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors.

exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research.

Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.

Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough consideration of all possibilities and aspects of the topic.

Excellent

Excellent standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Evidence of appropriate reading.

Covers all relevant points & issues.

Very Good

grammatical errors

& spelling mistakes.

Very good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Good

& some of its implications presented. Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.

Good

integration of literature/data into work. Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth.

See CASE with feedback

Satisfactory referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

See CASE/ Information Managers

(LRC) with feedback

Marginal

Fail

Must see CASE with feedback

Must see CASE/ Information

Managers (LRC) with feedback

calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

unsatisfactory evidence of business application &

insight

Work needs to

show better links between

practical application and theory.

More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe.

Must see CASE with feedback

Clear Fail

Must see CASE/ Information

Managers (LRC) with feedback

Descriptive.

Must see CASE with feedback

Little or

Nothing of merit

irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system.

Must see CASE/ Information

Managers (LRC) with feedback

knowledge demonstrated.

Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.

evaluation &/or reflection

Must see CASE with feedback

KEY

ACTIONS To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?)

 2.

3.