AIM University Group

Learning Outcome 1: Referred
"AC 1.1 — Identifying Key HRM Functions and Responsibilities
Grade: Pass

You identified four relevant HRM functions and connected each one to a practical action in the front desk department. Scheduling and planning, recruitment and selection, onboarding and training, and job/role clarification are all appropriate choices that map directly onto the problems described at SeaGlass. Your actions are grounded in the case — shifting an agent to start at 2:30 PM to cover the peak arrival window is a smart, story-based scheduling fix, and the role-play session on the greeting script is a sensible training action that addresses the outdated onboarding described in the case. For Question 3, you identified two handoff moments: passing a guest request such as a toilet paper refill to housekeeping, and passing payment information onward for processing. Both include a simple rule. The handoff rules are functional and clear. A stronger answer would have drawn more directly from the story's central pain point — the room readiness handoff between housekeeping and the front desk at 3 PM — but what you have provided is sufficient to meet the pass standard. This criterion is a pass.

AC 1.2 — Evaluating the Impact of HRM on Organisational Performance
Grade: Referred

You selected three appropriate outcomes — guest satisfaction, average check-in time, and rooms ready by three o'clock — and offered a brief sign for each. The signs themselves are reasonable: counting positive guest comments, tracking minutes per check-in, and checking the percentage of rooms marked ready. However, the question asks you to explain how the shift supervisor will collect each sign quickly without heavy paperwork. That collection method is missing from all three answers, which was a central part of what was being asked. For Question 5, the links between your HRM actions and each outcome are present but underdeveloped — particularly the connection between job clarification and rooms being ready, which is a stretch given your department is front office. Question 6, asking for one risk from weak HRM and one practical fix, does not appear in your submission at all. Because of the incomplete responses to Questions 4 and 5 and the absence of Question 6, this criterion is referred.

AC 1.3 — Analysing Case Scenarios to Address Hospitality Challenges
Grade: Referred

Questions 7, 8, and 9 are not present in your submission. Question 7 asked for two small changes to improve guest flow at the 3:30 PM queue without adding new staff. Question 8 asked for a friendly weekly feedback routine for supervisors and one thing you would listen for when supporting them. Question 9 asked for one shared screening step and one shared interview question for the front desk role. Without any response to these three questions, this criterion cannot be assessed. All three will need to be addressed in full in your resubmission, using only information from the SeaGlass case study."

Learning Outcome 2: Referred
"AC 2.1 — Developing a Recruitment Plan
Grade: Pass

You correctly identified the front desk agent as the most urgent role and gave a well-reasoned justification — they are the central point of guest interaction and critical for communication, problem-solving, and guest satisfaction. Your three qualities — customer service skills, communication skills, and time management skills — are relevant and each is connected to a seasonal target in a clear sentence. Your two SeaGlass positives — staff complimentaries and a positive team culture — are reasonable, and you explained how you would present each to candidates. The job advertisement is warm, readable, and captures the seaside setting, weekend pace, first-week coaching, and the importance of greeting guests efficiently. It reflects the SeaGlass voice well and meets the word count intent. This criterion is a pass.

AC 2.2 — Critically Evaluating Selection Methods and Tools
Grade: Referred

Your work tryout idea — a mock front desk scenario involving guest greeting, reservation confirmation, and handling questions — is a realistic and appropriate concept for SeaGlass. However, the question asks for a start-to-finish description that feels real in the setting, and yours is too brief to fully meet that. The three scoring points are touched on within the description rather than listed clearly as distinct criteria, which makes them hard to assess against. For Question 6, you described what you would note during the interview but did not state who keeps the notes or where they are stored at SeaGlass — both of which were explicitly required. For Question 7, using cultural fit and attitude as a tiebreaker is a reasonable instinct but needs more structure to be considered fair and defensible. A second short conversation or a review of availability against the weekend schedule would have been a stronger answer. These gaps mean the criterion is referred.

AC 2.3 — Presenting a Complete Recruitment and Selection Strategy
Grade: Referred

Your response to Question 8 gives a clear and well-written paragraph on the purpose of the front desk agent role. However, Questions 9, 10, and 11 are missing entirely. Question 9 requires a first week of onboarding covering day one, buddy or supervisor support, and when the first feedback moment occurs. Question 10 asks for two legal or ethical requirements in fair hiring and how your process meets them — think about equal opportunity and consistent, non-discriminatory interview questions as starting points. Question 11 asks what backup step you would use if a chosen candidate declines, using only people and tools already in the story. Without these three questions, a complete strategy cannot be demonstrated and the criterion is referred.

The main issue across the LO1 and LO2 submission is incompleteness. Several questions were skipped, which prevented multiple criteria from passing. For your resubmission, focus on answering every question in full, always draw from the story only, and pay attention to the specific detail each question asks for."

Learning Outcome 3: Pass
"Assessment Criterion 3.1 — Training Needs Analysis
Grade: Pass

You identified four skill gaps — inconsistent communication on amenities and policies, poor problem solving during check-in, uneven and weak guest greetings, and unclear communication of role expectations — and linked each one to evidence from the story. The fourth gap around role expectations is more of a management issue than a front desk agent skill gap, but the other three are well-chosen and clearly evidenced. Your ranking places problem solving first and greetings second, with the reasons at each position connected to the hotel's goals. Your five-step plan moves logically from journalling complaints to identifying behaviours, delays, and confirming observations before designing training, and the overall sequence is sound. Your two huddle questions targeting where agents feel most overwhelmed and where recurring guest questions cause confusion are focused and appropriate. Your two baseline measures of tracking recurring guest complaints and tracking average guest satisfaction score are both reasonable and connected to the hotel's performance signals in the story. This criterion is a pass.

Assessment Criterion 3.2 — Front Desk Agent Training Program
Grade: Pass

Your three learning objectives of a strong and consistent warm welcome with eye contact, amenity clarification through practising and listing policies, and professional handling of guests during busy hours are relevant and reasonably observable. Short practice sessions and practising common issues using scenarios are both appropriate methods. The justification for short practice sessions is well-grounded, noting that it directly addresses the mystery guest complaints about eye contact and soft tones. The scenario practice justification is also solid, explaining that recurring issues can be rehearsed and corrected among staff. Your greeting script is warm, clear, asks for the reservation name, and offers ongoing support throughout the stay, making it one of the stronger scripts in the group. Your diversity and inclusion step of familiarising staff with accent-friendly communication, practising short phrases and pausing to aid understanding, and providing confidence-building approaches for agents who struggle to communicate effectively is practical, specific, and directly drawn from the story's diversity realities. This criterion is a pass.

Assessment Criterion 3.3 — Evaluating the Training and Improving It
Grade: Pass

Your three evaluation methods of tracking common issues from weekly guest comments, holding a small weekly meeting with supervisors to check whether agents are greeting appropriately, and comparing average check-in times every two weeks are all story-based and each has a clear frequency. Your Week 2 sentence identifying steady improvement in understanding amenities and clear fee communication as the positive sign is specific, and your adjustment of delegating additional scenario tasks if complaints about body language have not reduced is a targeted and practical response. Your two reasons for why check-in time improved but satisfaction did not — guests still being uncertain about amenities after speaking with staff, and agents still struggling with eye contact making guests feel uncomfortable — are both drawn directly from the story. Your training fix of focusing on eye contact and confident speaking is well-matched to those reasons. Your Week 2 follow-up of hosting a meeting to bring everyone up to date on goals and your Week 6 session where feedback is discussed and support from others is reinforced are both practical, though they would be stronger if they referenced the specific story tools such as guest comment cards or mystery guest findings. This criterion is a pass."

Learning Outcome 4: Referred
"For 4.1 (analyze and interpret employment laws and regulations), your response recognizes that staff should not be pushed into unusual hours or earlier start times, and you suggest adjusting scheduling, which is a useful operational idea. However, to meet the pass standard you also needed to identify the specific compliance steps required when staff are nudged to work before clock-in: immediately stop the practice, review recent time records, and pay employees for all time already worked, including any overtime; retrain supervisors on lawful timekeeping; and reassure staff that raising concerns will not lead to retaliation. On the accommodation scenario, rotating tasks and avoiding heavy lifting is sensible, but the requirement is a simple interactive accommodation plan: meet with the employee, confirm temporary restrictions with medical guidance if needed, adjust duties or provide team lifts/tools safely, document the plan, and review it periodically. With cameras, the suggestion that employees must “consent to being recorded” and that footage can be “used against them” misses the point: cameras should be for safety and security only, never for routine break policing, with clear policy, no surveillance in private areas, limited access, and transparent communication. Because these concrete compliance and accommodation elements are missing, 4.1 is REFERRED.

For 4.2 (evaluate the impact of diversity and equal employment opportunity on HR practice), you correctly sensed the discrimination risk around protective hairstyles and linked this to the hotel’s commitment to fairness. To pass, you needed to translate that into practical HR changes that protect equal opportunity: update the appearance policy to focus on cleanliness and safety and include inclusive examples (such as protective hairstyles), apply it consistently across roles, and train leaders so remarks about “brand appropriateness” do not exclude cultural styles. Your response to the onboarding question drifted toward selection “simulations” rather than day-one inclusion; what was expected were simple, inclusive onboarding steps such as a buddy system, clear expectations in plain language, opportunities for new hires to share cultural needs or communication preferences, and supportive coaching for clarity and confidence on the floor. Because the practical EEO/DEI impacts on policy, leader behavior, and onboarding were not clearly set out, 4.2 is REFERRED.

For 4.3 (assess ethical dilemmas and propose appropriate solutions), your answer on the harassment scenario does not meet the ethical standard. Saying the manager should explain that “the main goal is just business” and effectively dismiss the issue leaves the employee unprotected and conflicts with a safe, respectful workplace. A passing response must put the employee’s dignity and safety first: intervene with the guests, support and, if needed, reassign the server, document the incident, and coach or discipline the lead who minimized the complaint so it does not recur. Your comments on appearance move in the right direction by valuing diversity, and your idea to model feedback for Daniel shows a supportive intent; to reach the threshold you should add a simple, concrete routine for feedback (observe, acknowledge one specific positive, identify one specific improvement, practice briefly, and follow up next shift). Because the core ethical response to harassment was not addressed appropriately, 4.3 is REFERRED."