The PG24808 Master of Arts in Work-Related Behaviour with Leadership and Management sits at Level 9 on Ireland’s NFQ. In truth, it’s designed for people already working in demanding settings who want to connect what they know about human behaviour with the tougher side of leadership. It helps them handle those messy, real-world situations where people, systems, and expectations collide. At this level, learners are expected to demonstrate critical autonomy, applied research capability, and evidence-based decision-making that can influence both culture and performance.
The programme brings together two domains – work-related behaviour and strategic leadership – to deepen understanding of how individual psychology interacts with organisational systems. Learners examine motivation, engagement, emotional intelligence, and change through frameworks such as Herzberg’s two-factor theory, Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, and Schein’s model of organisational culture. Simultaneously, they build advanced leadership capacity using transformational, authentic, and distributed models that suit contemporary Irish workplaces. Graduates leave prepared to design interventions that promote well-being, inclusion, and sustainable performance across sectors such as the HSE, education, enterprise development, and local government.
NFQ Level 9 attributes emphasise original thinking, critical synthesis of current research, ethical discernment, and leadership of innovation. Accordingly, this programme positions participants not only as consumers of theory but as reflective practitioners capable of generating new insights and influencing policy or practice within Ireland’s evolving labour environment.
Continuous Assessment makes up one-fifth of the overall mark. The purpose is fairly clear – to show that learners can actually think through the theory and policy behind work behaviour and leadership, not just repeat it. The best work shows that the writer has wrestled with ideas and linked them to how things really run in Irish workplaces.
High-quality submissions typically display:
Strong assignments usually dig deeper, pulling models like the JD-R framework into day-to-day Irish realities – for example, the awkward balance between home-based work and office life, or the slow push for reform in public services.
Good writing blends what’s out there – recent peer-reviewed studies, ESRI reports, even pieces from Enterprise Ireland – and shapes them into a single line of thought instead of listing them off like references.
Writers are expected to show a bit of ethical backbone too, keeping in mind GDPR, confidentiality, and the whole issue of psychological safety. In simple terms, it means showing you understand that people’s information and dignity come first.
Contextual relevance – situating arguments within Irish organisational settings, including SMEs and HSE teams.
Markers appreciate work that’s easy to follow. Clear sentences, steady flow, and clean referencing – APA 7 tends to keep everyone on the same page – make a big difference when they’re reading through a pile of submissions.
A solid CA file might contain a mix of analytical essays or policy notes that look at fresh leadership trends – things like digital empathy, inclusive decision-making, or emotionally smart management. These show how current thinking can actually fit within Irish teams. It is expected that students will draw on credible frameworks – for instance, Kotter’s eight-step change model to critique transformation initiatives, or Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to explore leadership confidence in remote supervision.
Mini Checklist for High-Standard CA Evidence
| Criterion | Indicators of Achievement |
|---|---|
| Critical Synthesis | Integrates ≥ 3 peer sources and contrasts them logically |
| Ethical Comprehension | Shows GDPR awareness and ethical research handling |
| Irish Relevance | Links to HSE, Enterprise Ireland or local SMEs |
| Currency | Uses sources from the past 5 years |
| Presentation Quality | Cohesive structure and accurate APA citation |
Micro-evaluation:
CA work at Level 9 is less about description and more about intellectual agility. The process cultivates evidence-based reasoning that directly supports the 80 per cent Skills Demonstration component, enabling participants to apply theoretical insight with ethical and contextual sensitivity.
Skills Demonstration accounts for the remaining 80 per cent of the assessment and represents the applied heart of this Level 9 programme. Learners must evidence leadership capability through authentic professional activity – for example, piloting a workplace change initiative, conducting a coaching cycle, or facilitating a well-being programme within their organisation. The focus is on reflective integration: showing how theoretical models inform real decisions and measurable outcomes.
Key elements include:
Sometimes the work takes the form of a leadership sprint – a short, focused burst where a real organisational issue gets tackled head-on.
Collaboration plays a huge role, too. Most of us end up drawing a quick RACI chart just to keep track of who’s doing what and who’ll answer for what when things get messy.
Change work rarely happens by accident, so models like Kotter’s or Lewin’s help to give the process a bit of shape – step-by-step planning rather than blind guessing.
Coaching and mentoring practice – applying the GROW model to support individual development.
Reflective journals and evidence logs – capturing learning, feedback, and ethical decision points.
Quality evidence combines artifacts (plans, dashboards, minutes) with critical narratives that demonstrate leadership judgement under real constraints – budget, time, conflicting stakeholder expectations. In most team pieces, Edmondson’s idea of psychological safety ends up being the yardstick for how people treat one another. Belbin’s team roles help spot where the gaps are before things fall apart. And no matter what, ethics and data privacy stay off-limits for compromise.
Objective
The dissertation is the capstone research element within PG24808, enabling students to explore a work-related issue that links behavioural insight with leadership practice. Typical topics include psychological safety in hybrid teams or ethical leadership in the Irish public sector.
Design and Methodology
A mixed-methods design was adopted to capture both quantitative data from employee surveys and qualitative insight through semi-structured interviews. This approach allows triangulation and depth. It aligns with Saunders et al.’s research “onion,” progressing from philosophy to method. Data collection complied with the Ethical Standards of the host institution and the Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR alignment). Participation was voluntary and anonymised. Reliability was enhanced through pilot testing, and rigour was ensured via member checking and transparent coding.
Contribution to Practice
Findings showed that authentic leadership behaviours correlated strongly with employee engagement scores and lower turnover intentions. In practice, this suggests that leaders who model openness and self-awareness (Goleman’s EI competencies) create cultures where staff feel valued and safe to voice concerns. The study also found that structured feedback loops enhanced trust and innovation in HSE teams undergoing digital transition.
Indicative Findings and Impact
| Theme | Evidence | Practical Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Psychological Safety | High scores where leaders used weekly check-ins | Improved reporting of process errors |
| Authentic Leadership | Transparency in decision rationale | Higher employee loyalty index |
| Hybrid Engagement | Purposeful use of Teams/Zoom for inclusive dialogue | Reduced digital fatigue |
Objective
This task required designing and implementing a well-being initiative aligned to the organisation’s strategic goals and national guidelines (HSE Healthy Workplace Framework 2021). The aim was to reduce burnout and enhance psychological safety in a cross-functional team.
Stakeholder Map (RACI Model)
| Role | Responsible | Accountable | Consulted | Informed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Lead (HR Manager) | ✔ | ✔ | ||
| Team Leads | ✔ | |||
| Employees | ✔ | |||
| Occupational Health Adviser | ✔ | |||
| Senior Leadership Team | ✔ | ✔ |
Evidence-Based Strategy Pack
Frameworks used: JD-R Model (Bakker & Demerouti) to balance job demands and resources; GROW Model for coaching conversations.
Actions implemented: monthly well-being workshops, peer-support buddies, and a digital pulse survey tool.
Metrics: engagement index (+12 %), sick leave (-8 %), staff feedback rating 4.6 / 5.
Implementation Risks and Controls
Inconsistent managerial buy-in → mitigated through briefing sessions and visible executive sponsorship.
Data privacy concerns → controlled via GDPR-compliant survey tools and aggregated reporting.
Sustainability risk → managed by embedding well-being KPIs into annual performance reviews.
Learning Note
At first, it was tempting to push a one-size-fits-all programme. However, consultation revealed that different departments valued different supports – some preferred flexible time policies, others peer dialogue sessions. This taught that advocacy for well-being must be contextual and participatory. The experience strengthened my capacity to negotiate stakeholder expectations while upholding ethical and EDI principles.
Objective
This task focused on strengthening my own ability to work independently while staying accountable within a team structure. At Level 9, that means not waiting for direction all the time but still keeping alignment with organisational goals. The purpose was to build a sustainable self-reflection system and a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) plan that could actually hold up once coursework ends.
Self-Reflection Engine (Cycle + CPD Plan)
I based my reflection process on Gibbs’ cycle. Each project stage had its own reflection note — what went well, what didn’t, and what needed re-thinking. Instead of long diary entries, I kept short memos after meetings or coaching sessions. This made reflection less of a chore and more of a live habit.
My CPD plan stretched across six months and included three streams:
Technical skills – short HR analytics course through LinkedIn Learning.
Leadership behaviour – monthly peer-learning circle with two managers from different departments.
Well-being & resilience – mindfulness sessions run by the staff-support service.
Each item had a clear milestone and review point. I learned to set outcomes that were measurable but flexible; for instance, “improve feedback quality in one-to-ones” rather than “be better at communication”. It sounds small, but it kept me honest.
Collaboration Mechanisms
Even though the task was about autonomy, collaboration sat at its heart. I joined a small peer-group check-in every Friday where we compared progress and traded resources. We used a simple shared document rather than fancy software. The accountability came from conversation, not compliance.
When tensions surfaced, Belbin’s team-role grid helped make sense of them. I tend to fall between “co-ordinator” and “completer”, while one peer was a strong “plant”. Once we saw that pattern, friction turned into balance instead of conflict.
Monitoring Dashboard (Micro-Indicators)
To track progress, I built a minimal dashboard:
| Area | Indicator | Review Cycle | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning engagement | Hours logged in CPD portal | Monthly | Steady uptake since Month 2 |
| Leadership feedback | Average rating from team check-ins | Bi-monthly | Rising trend +0.4 |
| Well-being score | Self-rating (1–10) | Fortnightly | Dips during deadlines – addressed with rest days |
These little metrics kept reflection visible. At first it felt overdone, but over time it built a rhythm of accountability without heavy supervision.
Micro-Evaluation
This task showed that self-leadership needs structure and empathy in equal measure. Setting up a reflective engine turned theory into habit. For Level 9 practice, it underlined that autonomy isn’t about working alone; it’s about working consciously.
Objective
The goal here was to design and critique different support options — mentoring, coaching, facilitation, or organisation-development (OD) interventions — and decide when each makes sense in an Irish workplace. The task demanded a kind of “menu thinking”: knowing which model suits which moment.
Approach Menu
| Support Type | When to Use | Strengths | Cautions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coaching (GROW model) | Individual growth / skill gap | Builds self-efficacy (Bandura) | Needs trust & time |
| Mentoring | Career progression / sector learning | Shares tacit knowledge | Risk of dependency |
| Facilitation | Cross-team dialogue | Encourages psychological safety (Edmondson) | Needs neutral facilitator |
| OD intervention | Structural change | Aligns culture & strategy (Schein) | Resource-heavy |
Programme Logic Model
| Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skilled mentors & coaches | Pairing scheme + training | Mentoring sessions completed | Increased confidence & staff retention |
| Time allocation (1 hr/wk) | Reflective journals & feedback | Documented learning themes | Enhanced cross-department learning |
| HR oversight & EDI policy | Quarterly review meetings | Updated support policies | Stronger inclusion climate |
Critical Appraisal
The design looked neat on paper but delivering it exposed trade-offs. Coaching brought deep learning yet required more time than line managers could spare. Mentoring scaled faster but sometimes blurred into supervision. Facilitation proved powerful for surfacing tension, though some participants found the openness unsettling at first.
To balance these effects, I used Kotter’s early-win strategy: small visible gains to keep sceptics on board. We tracked quick feedback such as “Number of cross-team ideas shared” instead of waiting for long-term retention stats. Over three months, that small shift doubled participation.
Domain Chosen: Leadership & Management
Objective
To create a new leadership-development programme suitable for a mid-sized Irish SME adapting to hybrid work. The design had to be ethical, inclusive, and measurable.
Blueprint Concept – “Lead Together” Programme
Purpose: build emotionally intelligent leadership culture within 12 months.
Modules: self-awareness (EI), coaching skills, inclusive decision-making, and change navigation.
Format: blend of workshops, peer labs, and micro-projects.
Participants: 12 team leaders + 2 executive sponsors.
Delivery Partners: Local Enterprise Office and one academic advisor from an Institute of Technology.
Roll-Out Strategy
Phase 1 – Kick-off (Weeks 1–4): baseline survey, EI self-assessment, and goal setting.
Phase 2 – Learning sprints (Weeks 5–20): bi-weekly labs with real workplace projects.
Phase 3 – Integration (Weeks 21–28): coaching circles + reflection sessions.
Phase 4 – Evaluation (Weeks 29–32): impact review and report to leadership board.
Evaluation KPIs
| Dimension | Indicator | Target Change |
|---|---|---|
| Employee engagement | Annual survey score | +10 % |
| Staff retention | 12-month turnover rate | –15 % |
| Leadership confidence | Self-report index | +0.5 |
| Collaboration index | Cross-team projects started | +25 % |
Ethical & EDI Safeguards
Informed consent for all feedback data – GDPR compliant.
Accessible materials with UDL principles for staff with learning needs.
Gender balance monitored at each cohort intake.
Confidential coaching agreements signed by both parties.
Appraisal
In practice, the first pilot ran into typical Irish SME constraints — competing deadlines and tight budgets. To be fair, that pressure forced creativity: shorter sessions, asynchronous reflection journals, and online micro-learning. After four months, EI scores rose modestly but the real gain was behavioural; leaders started asking staff for feedback without prompting. That small shift felt like proof that learning had stuck.
Objective
To map a cluster of leadership and behaviour theories and apply them critically to my chosen domain of leadership and management.
Theory Cluster Map
| Theoretical Lens | Core Idea | Practical Tension / Synergy |
|---|---|---|
| Transformational (Bass & Avolio) | Inspire through vision & values | Risk of idealism vs pragmatic needs |
| Authentic (Gardner et al.) | Self-awareness & relational trust | Aligns with Irish public-sector ethics |
| Emotional Intelligence (Goleman) | Manage self & others’ emotions | Reinforces transformational behaviours |
| JD-R Model (Bakker & Demerouti) | Balance demands & resources | Operational backbone for well-being |
| Kotter Change Model | Structured 8-step transition | Sometimes too linear for dynamic settings |
| Bandura Self-Efficacy | Belief drives performance | Links well with EI training |
| Edmondson Psychological Safety | Voice without fear | Foundation for innovation culture |
Critical Application
In the “Lead Together” pilot, these theories didn’t sit in neat boxes. Transformational leadership set the tone, while authentic and emotional-intelligence lenses made it credible. JD-R kept our eye on workload balance, and psychological safety proved the make-or-break factor for trust. At times Kotter’s model felt rigid for the fast hybrid environment, so we blended it with continuous-improvement loops from Lean thinking. The mix felt messy but real.
Tensions & Synergies
The main tension lay between vision-driven inspiration and everyday operational pressure. Some managers wanted quick fixes; others craved purpose. The synergy came when we linked emotional intelligence to performance data, showing that soft skills weren’t just “nice to have” but directly tied to KPIs. That evidence won skeptics over.
Practitioner Takeaways
Theories help as maps, not scripts.
Authenticity and psychological safety anchor change more than any framework.
Hybrid work requires leaders to translate vision into small daily behaviours.
Critical reflection should be a standing agenda item, not an afterthought.
Studying the PG24808 Master of Arts in Work-Related Behaviour with Leadership and Management can feel like walking a tightrope between work and deadlines. Most of us already lead teams or manage projects, and the extra reading hours are hard to find. When the pressure builds, having a reliable assignment helper online who actually understands Irish workplaces saves time and sanity. The writers at Ireland Assignment Help focus on academic integrity, GDPR care, and genuine insight, not shortcuts.
Many postgrads use this support for their dissertations or reflective journals, knowing it connects theory with Irish organisational life. The service offers clear, confidential Irish project help for students who just need structure and feedback, not ghost writing. Every file stays private and ethically reviewed.
For anyone finishing the research phase or leadership dissertation, the top thesis writing services in Ireland can guide design choices, sharpen reflection, and keep tone natural. It’s honest help — the kind that lets you stand over your own work with confidence.
Aoife Kelly is a skilled academic writer and subject expert at IrelandAssignmentHelper.ie, contributing since 2015. She holds a Master’s degree in Health and Social Care Management from Dublin City University and brings over a decade of experience in healthcare and social sciences. Aoife specializes in supporting students across a range of disciplines, including Healthcare, Childcare, Nursing, Psychology, and Elder Care. Her practical understanding of these fields, combined with strong academic writing expertise, helps students craft well-researched essays, reports, case studies, and dissertations that meet Irish academic standards.
Get Free Assignment Quotes
