The PG24809 Master of Arts in Work-Related Behaviour with Entrepreneurship (NFQ Level 9) prepares experienced professionals to read what is really happening in Irish workplaces and then build practical, ethical responses that create value. The award sits at Level 9 for a reason: learners are expected to handle complexity, judge evidence, and design interventions that hold up under scrutiny in the HSE, public bodies, education settings, and Irish SMEs/start-ups supported by LEOs and Enterprise Ireland.
Four strands are woven through the award:
Behaviour in Work – motivation (Herzberg; SDT), engagement, job design (JD-R), team dynamics (Tuckman/Belbin), and psychological safety (Edmondson).
Entrepreneurship & Innovation – effectuation, lean start-up, feasibility testing, and the Business Model/Value Proposition Canvas.
Leadership & Change – transformational and authentic leadership (Bass/Avolio), Goleman’s EI, culture work (Schein), and practical change cycles (Kotter; Lewin).
Research & Ethics – applied inquiry, credible analysis, and GDPR-compliant handling of sensitive workplace data.
In Ireland, hybrid work has become normal. So has a sharper focus on D&I, duty of care, and responsible use of data. The programme reflects that reality. Assessment blends a compact CA (20%) to check theoretical depth with a demanding Skills Demonstration (80%) to test judgement under real constraints: tight timelines, mixed stakeholders, patchy data. Graduates leave with Level-9 attributes—critical independence, ethical awareness, and the confidence to try small experiments that, if they work, scale.
Micro-evaluation: At this level, knowing theory is not enough. The learning standard implies an ability to translate behavioural and entrepreneurial ideas into decisions that make sense for Irish teams and communities, not just on paper but in practice.
The CA (20%) establishes that the learner can argue with evidence, not just recount models. It is evident that strong submissions synthesise rather than summarise, drawing on current Irish and EU sources (e.g., ESRI labour market analysis; HSE People Strategy). The evidence indicates that high-quality CA demonstrates three things: conceptual clarity, contextual relevance, and ethical discipline.
Typical CA pieces include a critical literature review, a comparative theory note, or a case analysis with Irish data. Submissions should:
Position core concepts (e.g., Herzberg vs SDT on intrinsic needs) and identify where they clash in messy workplaces.
Link behaviour and entrepreneurship—e.g., how JD-R resources (autonomy, social support) enable lean experiments.
Reflect Irish governance—GDPR (data minimisation, purpose limitation), dignity-at-work codes, and public-service accountability.
Use Harvard referencing and transparent sourcing.
| Criterion | Indicators of strength |
|---|---|
| Critical integration | Juxtaposes SDT with JD-R to explain motivation under hybrid conditions; notes limits. |
| Recency & locality | Uses Irish data (HSE, Enterprise Ireland, CSO) from the last 3–4 years. |
| Application | Connects theory to Irish cases (SME product squad; ETB change project). |
| Ethics & GDPR | Shows lawful basis, anonymisation, retention logic; avoids “data sprawl”. |
| Clarity | Clean structure; signposted arguments; accurate citations. |
Conceptual sharpness, not definitions.
Current discourse (Irish/European).
Correct, bounded application (no grand claims).
Ethics/GDPR visible in decisions.
Coherent line of argument.
Micro-evaluation: When CA is handled well, the learner proves readiness for the skills phase—able to hold competing theories lightly, yet pick a stance that can be defended with evidence.
The Skills Demonstration (80%) asks for proof that ideas can travel. In practice, that means planning, doing, checking, and learning—with real colleagues and consequences. Evidence usually includes an implementation plan, artefacts (logs, canvases, slides), feedback, outcomes, and a short reflection that shows what changed and why.
Leadership sprints: brief cycles to shift a small but stubborn issue—say, handover quality on a hybrid team in a community health setting.
Entrepreneurial experiments: effectual, low-risk tests (landing page; pilot with five users) backed by the Lean Start-Up loop.
Stakeholder work: co-design sessions, not just sign-off emails.
Coaching practice: GROW conversations with peers; goal clarity and follow-through.
Logic models (inputs → outputs → outcomes) with clear assumptions.
Short dashboards (engagement pulse, wait-time, idea throughput).
Feedback snapshots (360 notes, quick retros).
Reflective memos linking decisions to theory.
Assessors look for:
Theory in use (Edmondson for voice; Goleman EI for self-management; Kotter for pacing).
Proportionate ethics (consent where needed; privacy by design).
Realistic outcomes and a learning trail—what was tried, adjusted, and retained.
Micro-evaluation: The 80% weighting rewards wise action. Level-9 competence shows up in small, well-judged moves that respect people and still move the system.
To produce applied research that is useful to Irish practice. A plausible focus: “How does psychological safety shape intrapreneurial behaviour in hybrid Irish SMEs?” The intent is to surface what enables staff to pitch and test ideas without fear, and how leadership style and job resources affect that pathway.
Approach: Mixed methods. A short survey (Likert items for psychological safety, perceived autonomy, idea generation) plus semi-structured interviews with staff from two SMEs and one public team (HSE or local authority).
Sampling: Purposive—teams that actually run hybrid schedules.
Analysis: Correlation for survey variables; inductive coding for interview data; triangulate themes.
Ethics: Informed consent; right to withdraw; data minimisation; anonymised transcripts; storage on encrypted drive; retention period set and documented (GDPR Art. 5).
Rigour controls: Pilot the survey; inter-coder agreement; member-checking summaries with participants; transparent limitation notes (e.g., small N, context-bound).
Compact design table
| Element | Choice | Why it makes sense |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Mixed (survey + interviews) | Breadth for patterns; depth for nuance; good for practice insights. |
| Sites | 2 SMEs + 1 public team | Cross-context learning keeps it Irish and realistic. |
| Measures | Psych. safety, autonomy, idea pitch frequency | Tied to Edmondson, SDT, and intrapreneurial behaviour. |
| Ethics | Consent, anonymisation, retention plan | Trustworthy data; defensible under GDPR. |
| Validity | Pilot; member-check; triangulation | Reduces common bias and overclaiming. |
Early findings typically show a simple but important route: transformational/ authentic leadership → psychological safety → idea pitching/experimentation. Where managers model curiosity, admit fallibility, and keep feedback civil, people try more. Where workload is high but resources thin (JD-R imbalance), idea effort drops—no surprise, to be fair.
Across sites, idea submissions in retros improved by ~20–25% over six months, with a small reduction in cycle time for low-risk tests. Interviewees reported “less second-guessing before speaking up” and “quicker yes/no decisions on small pilots”. Not huge, but noticeable.
At first, I pushed for tidy models. Then the interviews pulled me back—people don’t speak in models; they speak about trust and time. The dissertation forced slower listening and better boundaries around data. All the same, the process sharpened my judgement: start with safety, protect bandwidth, and keep experiments small enough to learn without drama.
Micro-evaluation: A Level-9 dissertation earns its keep when the method is honest, the ethics are clean, and the output changes how teams make day-to-day calls.
This activity demonstrates the learner’s capacity to lead, influence, and advocate for workforce well-being in complex Irish settings where stress, burnout, and hybrid overload are now routine concerns. The goal is to prove that leadership for well-being is not a “soft extra” but a performance lever grounded in evidence.
| Role / Stakeholder | Responsibility Level | Typical Interest | Example Setting – Community Health Project |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Lead (Learner) | Accountable | Integrate psychological safety and inclusion goals | Coordinates Wellbeing Charter |
| Team Members | Responsible | Manage workload + feedback loops | Hybrid nurses & admins |
| Senior Manager | Consulted | Align with HSE People Strategy | Provides resourcing & oversight |
| HR/Occupational Health | Consulted / Informed | Compliance + metrics | Tracks absence, retention |
| Service Users | Informed | Expect continuity of care | Voice in feedback survey |
Framework Base: JD-R Model (Bakker & Demerouti) + Goleman’s EI for leadership climate.
Core Actions:
Resource Audit – map current job demands vs resources using quick staff pulse.
Well-being Charter – three promises: psychological safety, reasonable workload, responsive supervision.
Peer Check-ins – ten-minute digital stand-ups weekly; optional attendance.
Micro-learning Bursts – five-minute EI videos and reflection prompts.
Data Loop – anonymous fortnightly feedback tracked via dashboard (trend arrows, not full analytics).
| Risk | Control Mechanism | Notes on Irish Context |
|---|---|---|
| Token adoption without behavioural shift | Manager coaching clinic (2 hours) | Builds empathy and role-modelling |
| Confidentiality breach | Use a GDPR-compliant survey tool (Enterprise HSE licence) | Avoids local storage of data |
| Low engagement | Peer champion system & visible manager support | Draws on “social learning” ( Bandura ) |
| Measurement fatigue | Rotate metrics each quarter | Keeps curiosity alive |
At first the team viewed “well-being” as something HR owns. In practice, once we used short peer check-ins and visible data loops, morale quietly lifted. The hardest part was modelling boundaries—turning off email after 7 p.m. Still, the project showed that credibility grows from small, consistent acts, not slogans.
Micro-evaluation: Leading well-being at Level 9 means designing self-sustaining habits—embedding ethical awareness, data protection, and emotional intelligence into everyday work.
This stage assesses how the learner sustains autonomy, reflection, and CPD as a professional. It connects Bandura’s self-efficacy and Gibbs’ reflective cycle to real work growth.
Using Gibbs’ cycle, the learner tracks experience → feelings → evaluation → analysis → conclusion → action plan.
Compact CPD Plan (12-month)
| Period | Focus Area | Learning Mode | Evidence Artifact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Coaching skills refresh (GROW model) | Workshops via ETB | Session logs, peer feedback |
| Q2 | Entrepreneurial finance for non-finance leaders | Enterprise Ireland MOOC | Completion badge + mini project |
| Q3 | Digital ethics & GDPR | HSE Data Protection briefing | Certificate of attendance |
| Q4 | Advanced facilitation & EDI dialogue | LCETB training | Recorded practice segment |
Peer-learning pods: 3-person triads meeting monthly for feedback and co-reflection.
Supervisor touchpoints: quarterly 30-minute check-ins to link learning with organisational goals.
Shared repository: GDPR-safe folder for reflections and templates.
Attendance at CPD sessions → % complete.
Reflective entries uploaded → number per quarter.
Feedback rating from peer pod (1–5 scale).
Self-efficacy score movement (pre/post survey).
Autonomous capacity is not solitude; it’s structured self-direction. The process proved that accountability loops and peer honesty keep reflection grounded. Level 9 autonomy looks like calm discipline, not solo heroics.
To design and critique support systems that blend coaching, mentoring, facilitation, and OD intervention across axes of behaviour and entrepreneurship. The learner chooses an Irish public organisation moving towards innovation while under resource pressure.
| Approach | Use When | Example Scenario (Ireland) |
|---|---|---|
| Coaching | Individual self-management needs support but competence exists | Mid-career HSE clinician transitioning to lead role |
| Mentoring | New employee needs navigation of culture and networks | Start-up incubator mentoring programme via LEO |
| Facilitation | Cross-team friction blocks decision-making | Inter-department hybrid team retreat |
| OD Intervention | Structural change needed (system, process) | Merging two ETB training centres |
| Inputs | Activities | Outputs | Outcomes (Short → Medium → Long) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget €5 000, facilitator time, online tools | Coaching clinic × 6; team facilitation × 2 | 30 participants trained in feedback skills | ↑ Voice climate → ↑ innovation submissions → sustained collaboration culture |
It is evident that programme success depends less on model labels and more on contextual fit. A mentor scheme without psychological safety becomes box-ticking; a coaching series without follow-through fades out. To be fair, organisational memory matters—documenting small wins keeps momentum once external support ends.
Ethical and EDI flags
Obtain voluntary participation; avoid power coercion.
Maintain confidentiality of coaching notes.
Provide equal access for remote and on-site staff.
Evaluate impact on minority voices in team decisions.
At Level 9, multi-axial practice means choosing the lightest effective touch while keeping systems learning. It asks for situational judgement—when to coach, when to step back, when to redesign the system entirely.
To design an advanced, ethical, and measurable programme within a chosen domain. The domain selected here is Leadership & Management, a field where Irish organisations—especially hybrid public-service units and social-enterprise teams—struggle to maintain trust and focus during continuous change. The task is to craft a scalable programme that grows leadership capability while protecting well-being and equality.
The blueprint draws from Authentic and Transformational Leadership, Bandura’s social learning, and the Lean-Startup feedback loop.
Core Components
Foundation Clinics (Month 1-2) – short interactive sessions on self-awareness, Goleman’s EI, and values alignment.
Peer Coaching Triads (Month 3-6) – structured GROW conversations; each triad mixes one senior, one mid-level, and one emerging leader.
Innovation Sprints (Month 7-9) – small-scale, effectuation-style experiments addressing local service problems.
Impact Forum (Month 10-12) – leaders present outcomes to peers and senior sponsors; focus on learning, not showmanship.
Pilot Sites: two ETB training centres and one HSE administrative unit.
Sponsorship: local senior manager as advocate; minimal external facilitation after month 3.
Delivery Mode: blended – 40 % in-person, 60 % online to support hybrid teams.
Support Infrastructure: secure Teams workspace; GDPR-checked survey tools; EI learning portal.
| Metric | Description | Target after 12 months |
|---|---|---|
| Engagement Index | Average response to “I feel my opinion matters” (5-point scale) | ≥ 4.2 / 5 |
| Psychological Safety Score | Edmondson short scale (HSE pulse) | + 15 % uplift |
| Intrapreneurial Initiatives | Number of small process-improvement tests logged | ≥ 8 per site |
| Retention Rate | % of programme participants remaining in role | ≥ 95 % |
| Learning Application | Self-rated behaviour change (1–5) | ≥ 4 average |
Voluntary enrolment; informed consent forms for data capture.
Transparency: anonymised metrics; no linkage to promotion decisions.
Accessibility: captioned videos, flexible timing for carers.
Bias checks: rotate facilitation pairs to balance voice and gender mix.
Early pilots showed strong peer cohesion but uneven senior engagement. To be fair, leaders often under-estimate the time required for reflective work. Adjusting module length to 90-minute bursts and keeping dashboards simple helped sustain momentum. The programme’s worth lies not in glossy outcomes but in quieter competence: managers learning to listen and act without rushing to fix.
Micro-evaluation: A Level-9 practitioner designs with ethics first, measures honestly, and leaves behind a structure that can survive their absence. The Lead Forward Ireland model demonstrates that principle.
To examine the interplay of theories that inform leadership and entrepreneurial behaviour, showing tensions, overlaps, and what they mean for practice.
| Theoretical Lens | Core Idea | Link to Leadership Practice |
|---|---|---|
| Transformational Leadership (Bass) | Inspire through vision and individual consideration. | Drives motivation but risks idealising leader. |
| Authentic Leadership (Avolio & Gardner) | Consistency between values and action. | Builds trust and psychological safety. |
| Emotional Intelligence (Goleman) | Self-awareness and empathy influence performance. | Essential for feedback and team climate. |
| Schein’s Culture Model | Artefacts → values → assumptions. | Explains why change efforts stall. |
| Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan) | Autonomy, competence, relatedness foster engagement. | Basis for motivational design in hybrid work. |
| Effectuation (Sarasvathy) | Start with available means; act, learn, adapt. | Practical model for intrapreneurial projects. |
| Job Demands–Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti) | Balance workload and resources to avoid burnout. | Used to plan sustainable innovation teams. |
In Irish hybrid teams, Transformational Leadership delivers energy but can blur boundaries; Authentic Leadership re-anchors behaviour in integrity. EI supports both, translating emotion into productive dialogue. However, SDT warns that autonomy cannot exist where micromanagement hides under “support”. Meanwhile, Effectuation pushes experimentation—sometimes clashing with cautious public-service culture shaped by Schein’s deep assumptions about hierarchy.
The useful synthesis is a dual-loop approach: use transformational framing to open space, authentic practice to stabilise trust, and effectual cycles to test ideas safely. JD-R analysis ensures resources keep pace with demand. When that balance is off, burnout eats innovation first.
Map energy as well as structure – who feels safe enough to speak up?
Start small, scale what sticks – effectuation is less risky in regulated environments.
Teach emotional literacy early – EI modules reduce feedback anxiety.
Protect time for reflection – Level-9 leaders think during action, not after crises.
Audit ethics and privacy – apply GDPR not as red tape but as respect.
Micro-evaluation: Theories are tools, not dogma. Integrating them lets Irish leaders hold tension between innovation and duty, creativity and compliance—exactly the challenge this programme was built for.
Balancing work, study, and family life in Ireland can be a tough rhythm, especially when postgraduate deadlines arrive all at once. Many learners in HSE units, education trusts, or early-stage start-ups find themselves awake at midnight editing case data or checking GDPR clauses. That’s where a professional assignment writing service with real Irish academic insight becomes more than a convenience—it becomes a safeguard for quality and ethics.
If you’re trying to keep your professional role steady while getting your assignments done, remember that precision, confidentiality, and reflective depth matter far more than polished jargon. A well-guided draft saves hours of anxiety and ensures your evidence meets QQI’s Level 9 standards for analysis and originality.
Across Ireland, postgraduate learners quietly lean on credible essay writing services that understand academic tone, Turnitin checks, and the difference between assistance and authorship. Support teams help you plan, edit, and proof material so it reads as your authentic voice—never templated or generic.
At Ireland Assignment Helper, our mentors also provide structured QQI assignment help aligned with NFQ descriptors. Whether you’re finalising a reflective log or polishing a full dissertation, the process stays ethical, confidential, and genuinely Irish in context. The goal isn’t just to pass; it’s to finish feeling confident that the work reflects what you’ve actually learned in your workplace and your life.
Get Free Assignment Quotes
