e-Discussion

Welcome to EUSBD! Introduce yourself to your course-mates.

Guidance on originality, referencing, and scholarly conduct.

Important Information Regarding the European School of Business & Diplomacy Position on Academic Honesty with the proliferation of easily accessible electronic resources via the Internet, the practice of ‘cut and paste’ has become part of our everyday lives. Unfortunately, this can sometimes lead to assignments being submitted that are not adequately referenced and students may be find themselves in breach of European School of Business & Diplomacy rules on Academic Honesty (refer to the Student Handbook). This is not a problem specific to European School of Business & Diplomacy, but in the interest of quality and our reputation as a leading graduate school, we have determined that we will take steps to prevent all forms of plagiarism.

The Assignment Cover Sheet makes it clear what is required of all written work submitted for the purpose of assessment with the following statement: DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY OF WORK: I affirm that the attached work is entirely my own except where the words or ideas of other writers are specifically acknowledged through the use of inverted commas and in-text references. This assignment has not been submitted for any other subject at EUSBD or any other institution. I have revised, edited, and proofread this paper.

Note that while the Assignment Cover Sheet is not required for discussion board contributions, these same standards apply. Please also note that EUSBD routinely uses software that helps us to police plagiarism. This software ensures that all written work can be screened to make certain no student attempts to progress through the course other than via honest means.

Turnitin – A Plagiarism tool

Your Assignments and Projects will be run through Turnitin when you submit them on the LMS. Please refer Turnitin Integrate Assignment submission guideline and in case of any issues, please drop us an email at studentcare@eusbd.eu

(250–350 words)
Choose a real firm and one foreign country it is considering or has recently entered.

1. Give a concise PESTEL snapshot of that country.

2. Pick the most critical Five Forces factor for the firm’s industry in that country and explain why it matters.

3. State the strategic posture the firm should favour in that market, for example global, multi-domestic or transnational, and justify it in two sentences.

Engagement (reply to two classmates, 100–150 words each)
• Challenge one overlooked PESTEL risk or opportunity.
• Offer a contrasting industry force or a data point the poster could use.

Tutor engagement
Tutors will be present each day 10:00–13:00 UK time, prompting deeper analysis and linking posts to theory. Feedback is given within 48 hours of the first post.

Assessment focus
• Apply PESTEL and Five Forces to a global context with clear diagnosis.
• Link the scan to a defensible strategic posture.
• Use relevant, properly cited evidence.
• Engage constructively with peers.

(300–400 words)
Continue with the same firm and country from Forum 1.

1. Recommend an entry mode (export, alliance, acquisition or greenfield). Use CAGE to justify the choice in two or three points.

2. Identify two firm capabilities that give the entry a real chance of success. Use RBV/VRIO terms.

3. Name one localisation and one standardisation decision for launch.

4. Flag one ESG or ethical risk and give a practical mitigation.

Engagement (reply to two classmates, 100–150 words each)
• Stress-test the entry mode with an alternative that fits their CAGE analysis.
• Suggest one implementation KPI or governance control that would de-risk execution.

Tutor engagement
Tutors will be present each day 10:00–13:00 UK time, probing CAGE–entry fit, pressing for stronger VRIO evidence and checking ESG risk thinking. Feedback within 48 hours of the first post.

Assessment focus
• Select and defend an entry strategy using CAGE.
• Apply RBV/VRIO to explain advantage.
• Make sound glocal decisions.
• Surface ESG risk and a workable control.

(post 250–350 words):
Pick a real leadership moment you’ve experienced or observed in the last two years.

1. Diagnose the situation using two leadership theories from Week 1, for example transformational vs situational. Explain, in three crisp points, which gives the better fit and why.
2. Use Goleman’s EI to name one strength and one blind spot that shaped what happened. Be specific about behaviours.
3. Surface one ethical tension in the situation and state the decision you’d make now, with one practical safeguard to protect people or reputation.
4. Finish with a one-sentence “style shift” you would make when leading a multicultural or virtual team in the same scenario.

Engagement (reply twice, 100–150 words each):
• Identify one extra EI lever or ethical risk the poster hasn’t considered, with a short example.
• Offer one evidence source or data point they could use next time, for example pulse survey item, service KPI, or 360 comment.

Tutor engagement: Tutors present daily 10:00–13:00 UK time, nudging theory-to-practice links and pressing for clear evidence. Feedback within 48 hours of a student’s first post.

Assessment focus, aligned to Module 2 LOs:
• Apply leadership theory accurately, not as labels.
• Demonstrate EI and ethical judgement in context.
• Show style adaptability for multicultural and virtual teams.
• Use relevant, properly cited evidence where appropriate.

Submission and participation
Post your main response in the Module 2 Discussion platform and reply to at least two peers in each forum. Keep posts evidence-aware and reference any sources you draw on.

 (post 300–400 words):
Choose a team with at least two national cultures that works hybrid or fully online. You may use your workplace or a well-documented case.

1. Use Hofstede or Trompenaars to flag two cultural value gaps that could affect decision speed, feedback, or meetings. Keep it concrete.
2. Set two operating norms for the team that handle those gaps, for example decision logs, rotating chair, or meeting templates.
3. Anticipate one likely conflict. Pick a Thomas–Kilmann approach and justify it in context.
4. Name one political dynamic or power issue that could derail the plan and how you would counter it ethically.
5. Add one ritual to build trust in a distributed setting, for example weekly wins, peer kudos, or show-the-work demos.

Engagement (reply twice, 100–150 words each):
• Stress-test a peer’s conflict approach with a viable alternative and state the trade-off.
• Offer one inclusion tweak that strengthens psychological safety for a quieter subgroup.

Tutor engagement: Tutors present daily 10:00–13:00 UK time, prompting tighter cultural diagnosis and practical conflict moves. Feedback within 48 hours of first post.

Assessment focus, aligned to Module 2 LOs:
• Apply cross-cultural models to real team behaviours.
• Select and defend a conflict strategy that fits the context.
• Show inclusive, ethical leadership choices that build trust in hybrid teams.

Submission and participation
Post your main response in the Module 2 Discussion platform and reply to at least two peers in each forum. Keep posts evidence-aware and reference any sources you draw on.

(post 300–450 words):
Choose a real change your organisation needs in the next 6–12 months, or use a documented case.

1. Select one change model, Lewin or Kotter, and justify the choice in two or three points tied to your context.
2. Run a quick diagnostic using either Force-Field or McKinsey 7-S. Name the two biggest blockers you must move first.
3. Design a focused OD intervention to tackle those blockers, for example a pilot plus coaching, a role redesign, or a feedback and goals reset.
4. State two success measures, one behavioural and one business, and how you will collect the data.
5. Close with one step to sustain leadership behaviours after go-live, for example action learning sets, a 30–60–90 plan, or a peer-coaching circle.

Engagement (reply twice, 100–150 words each):
• Offer an alternative model or diagnostic and explain what it would reveal.
• Suggest one risk the poster hasn’t covered and a mitigation that is simple and testable.

Tutor engagement: Tutors present daily 10:00–13:00 UK time, checking model–context fit and pushing for measurable OD design. Feedback within 48 hours of first post.

Assessment focus, aligned to Module 2 LOs:
• Explain and apply change and OD concepts to a live context.
• Design and evaluate a leadership intervention with clear measures.
• Show ethical awareness and inclusive practice during change.

Submission and participation
Post your main response in the Module 2 Discussion platform and reply to at least two peers in each forum. Keep posts evidence-aware and reference any sources you draw on.

Forum opens: Thursday, 28 May 2026, 09:00 BST
Forum closes: Friday, 5 June 2026, 17:00 BST
Contact hours: 5
Weighting: 3% of Module 3 grade

Prompt (post 250–350 words):
Choose a real ethical dilemma in a multinational context. It can be from your organisation or a well-documented case.

1. Apply two ethical lenses from Week 1, for example utilitarianism and deontology, to reach a clear recommendation.
2. Identify the affected stakeholders and the main harm–benefit trade-off in one short paragraph.
3. Name one relevant standard or rule that bites here, for example GDPR, SOX, OECD Principles or the UN Global Compact, and state the exact duty it creates.
4. Propose one concrete safeguard that would embed ethical conduct, for example a whistleblowing route, a conflict-of-interest register or a supplier code clause.
   Cite any sources used.

Engagement (reply twice, 100–150 words each):
• Challenge a hidden assumption or stakeholder the poster missed and show how it changes the decision.
• Suggest one policy sentence or control that would close the gap.

Tutor engagement: Tutors present daily 10:00–13:00 UK time, pressing for precise use of theory and rules. Feedback within 48 hours of the first post.

Assessment focus, aligned to Module 3 LOs:
• Apply ethical decision models to real dilemmas.
• Connect recommendations to governance and regulatory duties.
• Propose practical policy controls that reinforce ethical conduct.

Submission and participation
Post your main response in the Module 3 Discussion platform and reply to at least two peers in each forum. Keep posts evidence-aware and reference any sources you use. All dates above fall within the Module 3 window.

(post 300–400 words):
Pick a listed or large private company.

1. Assess board composition and independence against one code, for example the UK Corporate Governance Code, Malta Corporate Governance Code or OECD Principles. Name two strengths and one weakness.
2. Evaluate the board’s committee structure for risk and audit. What’s missing or underpowered, and why does it matter for accountability and transparency
3. Draft a one-paragraph risk appetite statement for the company and name two KRIs that the board should see each quarter.
4. Show one way your proposal improves stakeholder trust.

Engagement (reply twice, 100–150 words each):
• Offer one governance tweak with a trade-off explained, for example raising independence vs losing deep industry knowledge.
• Add a sharper KRI or reporting cadence that would help oversight.

Tutor engagement: Tutors present daily 10:00–13:00 UK time, linking posts to recognised codes and stronger risk governance. Feedback within 48 hours.

Assessment focus, aligned to Module 3 LOs:
• Evaluate governance frameworks and board effectiveness.
• Translate codes into actionable structures, risk appetite and KRIs.
• Show how governance choices strengthen accountability and trust.

Submission and participation
Post your main response in the Module 3 Discussion platform and reply to at least two peers in each forum. Keep posts evidence-aware and reference any sources you use. All dates above fall within the Module 3 window.

(post 300–450 words):
Choose a plausible crisis for your sector, for example ransomware, product contamination or executive misconduct.

1. Build a mini risk register of three risks with likelihood, impact and owner. Prioritise using a simple 1–5 scale.
2. Outline your first 24-hour response map. Who leads, who approves, who informs regulators or customers
3. Name two leadership behaviours that matter in this scenario and how you’ll maintain psychological safety under pressure.
4. Add two resilience moves for the next 90 days and one post-crisis debrief action that leads to a policy or process reform.
   Include any data or frameworks used.

Engagement (reply twice, 100–150 words each):
• Add one overlooked risk, KRI or escalation trigger.
• Translate a lesson into a policy sentence or training change the original poster could implement next month.

Tutor engagement: Tutors present daily 10:00–13:00 UK time, testing decision quality, ERM logic and learning capture. Feedback within 48 hours.

Assessment focus, aligned to Module 3 LOs:
• Apply ERM tools, risk registers and heat-map logic to prioritise action.
• Demonstrate crisis leadership and clear decision paths.
• Convert debrief insights into lasting policy and resilience measures.

Submission and participation
Post your main response in the Module 3 Discussion platform and reply to at least two peers in each forum. Keep posts evidence-aware and reference any sources you use. All dates above fall within the Module 3 window.