Structuring your essay for PaGO

For the preparation of part 1 (2,000 words essay with critical analysis), we have invited students to
originally reflect on the material that has been presented and discussed during the term and thus
construct their own structure of the analysis. We are looking for unique answers and styles of arguing.
Use your imagination and critical thinking, in order to relate generic ideas and theories (that we have
explained throughout the term) to the given case study. Clarity, consistency, precision and step-by-step
analysis are what we are looking for. There is no single correct way to tackle the task of the assignment
or to structure it; so, we are inviting students to critically reflect on academic sources in their own
original way. However, for those who would like to have some inspiration about where to begin and
how your assignment might unfold, here is a suggested structure.

A structure for inspiration…

1. One can start the analysis with a brief introduction (150 words max);
2. Τhen, you can offer a clear analysis of the case study (250 words approximately). You can start
identifying ‘dimensions’, ‘issues’ or ‘aspects’ in the case study, which link the story in the case
study to relevant academic topics. An example of a dimension could be culture and an issue
could be the exploitative cultural behaviour displayed by some management which supports
certain modes of power relations among employees and senior managers. One might also wish
to claim that we can change toxic culture in the workplace with the help of different HR
strategies and policies relating to international sourcing (the protagonist of the case study was
not well informed about duties and conditions in Lidl) and ethics (the unethically lied to him
about his Wife’s visa). Or one could reflect on culture in organisation and related practices of
training (or the absence of related policy) in the case study. So, here our description of the
case study can lead us to certain topics that emerge from this description;
3. The previous section can guide the main theoretical analysis (700 – 900 words approximately).
In this part, one could start from definitions of culture by also presenting key debates on
managing culture (see, Smircich, 1983 + other articles from the reading list). And then, a
possible analysis of power by reflecting on Steven Lukes’ idea that we can identify power in
cases where one shapes the preferences or ideas or values of others against their own interests,
by noting that this is consistent with the first metaphor (culture as variable) in Smircich (1983).
Note that, alternatively, one might wish to discuss the root metaphor, and perhaps one would
like to link the idea that culture emerges in and through interaction (root metaphor) with
Foucault’s analysis of explaining the nature of power. In both cases, one possible key question
is: can an HR department succeed in changing organisational culture and power relations by
using certain tools? For example, with consideration of ethics or EDI, one can include the
debate around ethical working, training, cultural adaptation, etc. Similar points can be drawn
for the introduction of a different strategy in international sourcing; OR: here, one might wish
to choose other topics like globalisation, isomorphism and national institutions; or
McDonaldization, culture, power; or leadership, international sourcing and training &
development (just like in the previews structure); or culture, leadership, ethics and equal
opportunities; or choose among many other combinations! So, imagine that one of your
classmates is really interested in the contrast between leadership and power (by using
Alvesson and Spicer’s article as a linking point + other articles, as only one is not enough) and
also in the notions of transformational and ethical leader (with reference to the toxic
triangle), so as to further link these ideas with ethics and new visions in equal opportunities

1
 in HR practices. In depth theoretical analysis is expected here – by offering linking points
among key academic ideas and concepts. For example, ethical leadership style might be linked
with ethics in the HRM, or inclusion. There are so many possibilities of linking the concepts
you wish to choose!
4. In the next section you could link ideas from your theoretical analysis with the key points of
the case study. This is the discussion (500-600 words approximately). Here we expect your
original reflections, critical remarks, comparative points and linking points; BUT WHAT
DOES IT MEAN TO LINK IDEAS WITH A CASE STUDY? The word ‘link’ is intentionally
abstract so as to open up possibilities of different approaches. Let us focus on two classical and
usual ones:
a) One, for example, might wish to assess (or even test?) theories in view of the case study. For
example, one might wish to say that Lukes’ or Foucault’s ideas on power, or certain notions of
leadership, are (not) applicable or (ir-)relevant to the case study and offer arguments in support
of this remark. Or that certain HR policies could not be effective in cases like this for some
reason, so that we are in need of a certain style of leadership or management (or, the opposite:
that leadership theories are abstract and not applicable in real life, so that we need more
sophisticated tools offered by HRM).
b) Alternatively to (a), one might wish to take the exegetical/theoretical value of certain ideas
for granted (that is, with no intention to assess or test them), and then use these ideas so as to
uncover hidden dimensions that exist in the case study. Here you can carefully choose a few
short quotations from the case study and ‘translate’ them with the help of key theories.
According to this way, theory gives us “explanatory power” to see further and beyond or
beneath mere descriptions of a case study. “More than meets the eye” of a journalist or a
commentator who does not grasp the theories that you have studied in the University; according
to this style, theory empowers you as a scientist by offering you concepts and ideas that a
journalist cannot have: “transformational leadership” or “transactional leadership”, just to take
one example among many, as one could claim that Lidl follows transactional or autocratic style
of leadership, or surely not an ethical one that can promote ethics in business or equal
opportunities. Or “discourse” as modes of “cultural” reproduction of power relations in the
workplace (you can show this be pointing to discussion between our hero of the case study and
his colleagues). Or McDonaldization and globalization can be linked to different forms of
capitalism and international HRM; OR, isomorphism can be linked national institutions, etc.
Theory here gives you the chance to investigate tools that lay commentators cannot grasp.
5. Conclusion (150 words max).

Again one can choose different combinations of topics, depending on which topics s/he is interested in.
There are so many possible interesting combinations!

Examiners observations on common mistakes

• This essay targets your own original way to link key ideas (related to key topics we
have discussed at lectures and seminars) with the case study (that took place at some
point in the past at a Lidl store). We do not want to see essays focusing on Lidl, offering
generalisations and conclusions about Lidl’s past or present. This has nothing to do with
what we have asked for in the assignment brief. Of course, if you can find academic or
non-academic additional literature about Lidl to support your remarks on the case study,

2
 that’s OK. But in any case, this is not a report about the overall analysis of the (past or
present) financial status or working relations in this specific company or any other
company. Of course, you need to refer to the company here and there, as the story takes
places at one of its stores. But what we want to see is use of ideas, to link them with
things that happened at some point, and we also need to see careful analysis that avoids
crude generalisations and unsupported conclusions.
• In the introduction we should be specific and brief. No need for abstract analysis or
unnecessary details in the introduction.
• Being brief (and focused) applies also to examples from the case study. If these are
too long, the analysis can be too descriptive to be academically interesting. We are more
interested in linking ideas to the case study than what actually happened to Matt. We
know what happened, no need to spend many words in telling the story again and again.
• We do not need a special subsection of recommendations in the essay (Part a). This
should not be a section at the main analysis of the essay. The recommendations part of
the learning objectives is assessed in the presentation (part b).
• We can see that some students in the essay are using many secondary sources (we are
OK with this in principle), however no use of our core readings – not even one of the
core readings we have discussed at the lectures! But why? Are they so bad? Again, we
are happy to see additional, secondary sources that you found in your own research, but
we would also like to see adequate and original use of the core readings we have given
you in the module reading list.