Copyright © 2011 SIM University

Lead and Influence

Tutor-Marked Assignment 01
January 2012 Presentation
COR169 Tutor-Marked Assignment

This tutor-marked assignment is worth 50% of the final mark for COR169 Lead and Influence.

The cut-off date for this assignment is 2359 hours on 4 May 2012


Submit your solution document in the form of a single MS Word file on or before the cut-off
date shown above.

Additional instructions:

1. You will need to indicate clearly on the front page your name, student ID, course title and
assignment number.

2. You must not copy any case from any course e.g. the internet. If you do, the plagiarism
detection software “Turnitin” will be able to pick it up and you will severely penalized.
You must document all information that you use from another source, or you will be
penalized severely. If you copy from the work of another student, regardless of the
course or programme, you will be severely penalized. You are not permitted to re-use
material from past assignments whether in part or in full.  All of the above actions can
result in your failing the TMA.

This TMA assesses the following learning outcomes:

Students should be able to

• Identify the sources of power in leadership positions
• List the desired attributes of teamwork
• Describe the role of communication in leading
• Comment on the value of coaching for team effectiveness
• Interpret the theories of leadership in relation to organisation behaviour, social change
and teamwork
• Demonstrate the application of the various leadership concepts to various group
environment (familial, social, political).

In this course, you are encouraged to be a “participant-observer” at your workplace.  This
means that you should be observing and reflecting on leadership behaviour or acts that you
see around you. This practice of observation and reflection will help you raise your
consciousness about leadership.

You have also been taught the various theories of leadership and frameworks for analysing

SIM UNIVERSITY Tutor-Marked Assignment – Page 2 of 3
COR169 Tutor-Marked Assignment
For this TMA, you are required to do two things: firstly to write about a leadership behaviour
in the form of a case and secondly to analyse this leadership behaviour. Marks will be
awarded separately for these two parts. The total number of words should be about 800

Part 1: the case (40 marks)

The case should be about 500 words long. It should have the following features

• It should be in the form of a narrative (story).
• There should be a protagonist who is in a leadership position and needs to make a
decision when confronted with a problem. The protagonist could be you.
• The story can be about the decision already made or yet to be made.
• There should be a trigger event or an incident that brings the problem to the
• There should be a wider context to this situation.
• The narrative itself should be within a specific time frame.
• You can disguise your case.

Write your case in the past tense.

Part II: analysis (60 marks)

The analysis should be about 500 words.

Pick at least two theoretical frameworks to analyse the case.  Your analysis should have some
depth. In your analysis you should explain the good and bad points about the leadership (or
lack of) demonstrated and how the problem should be resolved (if the decision is yet to be
made and problem is not yet resolved) or whether the decision made was a good one (if the
decision has already been made). If you are writing about team effectiveness, then use the
relevant theory to analyse the case.



Recently I faced a very strange situation as the managing director of the board where I had to carry out removal of Mr. Lou as our director due to the fact that he was involved in exchanging information with his good friend another director of the company for his personal gains which was discovered by the results in dipping stock prices of the company. The information was concerned with the future market plan of the company which was still inside the forewalls of the company but after the exchange it was carried out by the other company by making a formal announcement thus forcing their prices to jump and ours falling as a result.

Thus I had to follow the procedure as laid down under The Companies Act which clearly certifies a breach of Director’s Fiduciary duties towards the company. Mr. Lou was vehemently arguing that he was recently made the member of the friend’s company which he would have disclosed very shortly but still was not disclosed amounting to a breach[Section 156(4) of the Companies Act]. Thus I had to follow the procedure regarding removal of directors which is properly engrafted in the Act [Section 152, Companies Act].

As per the procedure I had to call for a extraordinary general meeting where all the fellow directors are present to discuss about the representation of Mr. Lou which was very unsatisfactory as he has breached his duty as the director after the I proposed the resolution to be passed by ordinary motion which was the procedure which the directors agreed to pass without any fuss thus making it a very simple process. The representation given by Mr. Lou was unsatisfactory as there is no proper reason for him not to disclose his interest in another company. Moreover it was his duty to act in the interest of the company till the time he is a director and anything which he should have done should have been in the interest of the company not for his own benefit. Thus after following of the procedure under the act I performed my duty under the act by relieving Mr. Lou of his duties as director as he was not representing any particular class of shareholders thus it is not obligatory upon us i.e the entire board to immediately fill his vacancy thus we have created a casual vacancy to be filled later and after analyzing a suitable candidate for the post so that these kinds of mistakes are not repeated often. As per the law every procedure is followed in this case that is being ensured as the outgoing director was also given a chance to explain his conduct which is highly grave and as he has done many productive works for the company also thus we were not inclined to impose any harsh penalties upon him. It was a very close association with him and was a very difficult decision to make thus I wish him all the best for his future.



As we see in the instant case it was a clear breach of statutory duty by the director thus to ensure good corporate governance standard. The statute has certified that the duties of directors are always to be fulfilled and the directors should remain honest and diligent towards the company and its business thus making a proper business environment. As we see the statute also ensures that the governance of the company is carried out by the directors and they have a duty to ensure that they act as per the standards set out in the memorandum and articles of association of the company [Singapore Company Law]. Moreover we see that the directors are mandatory obliged to put forward the interests of the company first and there should be no clash of their personal interests along with the interests of the company [Directors Duties and Responsibilities].

Thus we see in the present case the duty of personal care towards the company had been breached as well as the director has acted in course of gaining personal profits deliberately by putting his interest forward keeping apart the interest of the company. Although he has explained that it was also his duty to protect the interest of another company as he was also working for that but it would not act as a defense as the proper procedure under the statute would have been to inform the board about his interest in another company and then take their permission and start acting for the interests of that company and relinquishing his interest in this company. As the companies were arch rivals and deals in almost same kind of businesses thus it would have become more important for the person to take the permission of the board. Moreover from the conduct of the director prima facie it is proved that he has acted beyond his capacity to indulge in a secret transaction which is simply not allowed in the law as it has demined the status of the chair thus this is a necessary decision that had been taken in the interest of the company and improvement of the business.

Fiduciary duty of the director is the duty of care towards the company and shareholders which should not be breached in any condition negligence is bit tolerated but the act which has been done here is a clear berach of duty and done very deliberately thus inviting penalties towards the director. The decision has to be taken in consultation with the board which has unanimously formed an opinion to remove him because of his conduct although at times it has to weighed according to the circumstances but here taking all the things into account there is no defense available with Mr. Lou to prove that he has done the act in good faith thus the decision which had been taken does not suffer from any anomalies.


  1.  Companies Act viewed on 23rd April 2012 <;ident=3d351f8c-50ab-4511-b3cc-cc3b410067a6;page=0;query=CompId%3A3854ad7b-fcbf-4768-9305-0b3095d14559;rec=0;>
  2. Singapore Company Law viewed on 23rd April 2012 <>
  3. Directors Duties and Responsibilities <>


“The presented piece of writing is a good example how the academic paper should be written. However, the text can’t be used as a part of your own and submitted to your professor – it will be considered as plagiarism.

But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper.  Our service offers Law  essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”

Please  Click on the  below links to Chat Now  or fill the Order Form !
order-now-new                chat-new (1)