BUSS2000 · Leading And Influencing In Business
The Complete Exam Bible · S2 2026Leading and Influencing in Business
BUSS2000 Leading and Influencing in Business is the University of Sydney Business School's second-year compulsory core in leadership, influence and organisational behaviour. Organised into three themes — Understanding Yourself, Understanding Others and Leading & Influencing — across 12 blended modules, it covers individual differences (personality, HEXACO, emotional intelligence), motivation and self-determination theory, career goals, values and ethics, diversity and cultural competence, team and group processes, managing perceptions and conflict, leadership and the bases of power, persuasive communication and active listening, and stress, mindfulness and career sustainability.
It is assessed by an Early Feedback Task quiz (5%), Unit Engagement (10%, with an 80%-workshop-attendance eligibility gate), the individual Design the Future YOU report (30%), a Team & Individual Presentation (20% = 15% team + 5% individual), and a closed-book final exam worth 35% (2 hours + 10 minutes reading time). The exam is the part students fear most: TWO broad open-ended reflective essay questions with no past papers, where the only material you may bring is one A4 single-sided handwritten sheet. Marks come not from memorised facts but from depth of reflection, relevance to named concepts and theories, and clarity of reasoning — structured with the Bloom-Fink describe → analyse → apply → evaluate engine.
What BUSS2000 covers
The whole subject → one exam-ready map. Each topic links to its free chapter guide, built to mirror the reflective final exam.
How BUSS2000 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Early Feedback Task (EFT) Online Quiz | 5% | Online quiz, 20 MCQ on content + readings from Modules/Workshops 1–3; due end of Week 3; readings may be assessed |
| Unit Engagement | 10% | Preparation (weekly quiz + pre-workshop tasks), attendance and active participation; eligibility gate = attend ≥80% (10 of 12) workshops; assessed from Week 3; unexcused absence = 0 for that workshop |
| Design the Future YOU | 30% | Individual written assignment applying design-thinking + Theme 1 (understanding self) theories/readings to a critical self-analysis and career road-map (strengths, values, ethics, person-organisation fit) |
| Team & Individual Presentation | 20% | Live team presentation (incl. Q&A) in workshop on a Theme 2/3 topic; team mark 15% + individual mark 5% (oral communication & presentation); ~4–5 per team; every member must present |
| Final Exam | 35% | Closed-book, formal exam period; 2 hours + 10 minutes reading; TWO open-ended reflective essay questions; one A4 single-sided handwritten note sheet permitted; covers any module/reading (exam date subject to confirmation against the official USyd S2 2026 timetable) |
Model exam essay (Team question): apply Tuckman + self-determination theory to a group conflict
- depth: theory namedOpen by naming a theory + author and pointing it at a concrete experience: "In my BUSS2000 team our trajectory mapped almost exactly onto Tuckman and Jensen's (1977) five-stage model." This earns the 'relevance to theory' criterion in the first line.
- depth: describe → analyseDescribe a specific moment, then analyse it through the model: a sharp storming phase when two members disagreed over how to split the work. The theory reframes it — storming is a normal, necessary stage, not a personality clash — which is analysis, not mere description.
- relevance: apply (not define)Apply a second theory to the action you took: rather than assigning tasks top-down (which would undercut autonomy), draw on Ryan and Deci's self-determination theory and let each member claim the sub-task they felt most competent in — restoring autonomy, competence and relatedness.
- clarity: evaluate + improveEvaluate honestly: output improved once the three needs were met, but the mistake was waiting until storming to set norms — a brief team charter during forming would have pre-empted the role conflict.
- clarity: first-person conclusionClose with a brief reflective insight in the first person: "team friction is a process to be managed, not a fault to be blamed." Keep the whole answer first-person and do NOT signpost "Bloom" or "Fink" — integrate the describe → analyse → apply → evaluate arc implicitly.
Key terms
- Bloom-Fink reflection framework
- The unit's master answer-structure (revised Bloom 2001 + Fink 2003). It pairs Bloom's cognitive levels (Remember → Understand → Apply → Analyse → Evaluate → Create) with Fink's significant-learning dimensions, and operationalises into the essay arc Describe → Analyse → Apply → Evaluate. Used across Design the Future YOU, the presentation and the exam — integrated implicitly, never signposted as "Part 1: Bloom."
- Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci)
- The unit's flagship motivation theory: motivation runs on a continuum from amotivation to intrinsic, and is fuelled by three basic psychological needs — autonomy (control over what you do), competence (feeling effective) and relatedness (belonging). Meeting all three produces self-determined, intrinsic motivation; it is the go-to lens for diagnosing a team-motivation slump.
- HEXACO model (Ashton & Lee 2009)
- The six-factor personality model BUSS2000 students actually take (via the PaLDIP HEXACO-PI-R-S60): Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. Its addition over the Big Five is the Honesty-Humility factor; you may cite your own HEXACO result as reflective evidence in the exam without producing proof.
- French & Raven's bases of power
- Six sources of power (French & Raven 1959; Raven 1965): the position/structural bases — Legitimate, Reward, Coercive — and the personal/cognitive bases — Expert, Referent, Informational. The key reflective move is that you can build the personal/cognitive bases without any formal title, which is how influence works without authority.
- Concept vs theory
- An exam-critical distinction from the Week-13 webinar: a theory is a named framework/model with author(s) (e.g. self-determination theory, Tuckman & Jensen's five stages, social categorisation theory), whereas a concept is a broad idea (e.g. "diversity") and a metaphor like "bad apple" is loosely usable. The rubric rewards naming and applying theories, so anchor each essay on named theories, not just concepts.
BUSS2000 FAQ
Is BUSS2000 hard?
It is conceptually broad rather than technically hard — there is no maths and no single textbook — but students consistently find the exam the hardest part of any USyd Business core, because it cannot be crammed the normal way. It is closed-book and reflective, has no past papers or sample questions, asks two broad open-ended essays, and lets you bring only one single-sided A4 handwritten sheet. The difficulty is structural, not technical: you must understand a handful of theories deeply enough to apply them to your own experience under time pressure, and you must write reflectively. Students who keep up weekly and rehearse the Bloom-Fink answer arc generally do well.
What is the final exam actually like, given there are no past papers?
From the official Week-13 exam-prep webinar: it is closed-book, 2 hours plus 10 minutes reading, with TWO open-ended reflective essay questions. Q1 is the team-focused question (reflect on your BUSS2000 team experience); Q2 is a broader application to any team/work/life experience (a non-BUSS2000 example is encouraged to avoid repetition). The questions will NOT name a specific theory — you choose which to apply. You write in the first person, roughly 2–4 single-sided A4 pages per question, naming the theory and its author(s)/year but with no reference list and no formal citations required.
What can I bring into the exam, and what should go on the A4 sheet?
One A4 sheet of handwritten notes, single-sided only — no print-outs, no iPad print-outs, one side only. The instructor's rule of thumb is to revise at least 4 concepts/theories in depth, with at least one clearly applicable to your team experience. So put your strongest portable theory bank on the sheet: for each theory, the name + author/year, a one-line definition, and a trigger phrase reminding you of a personal example you can apply. Strong picks include self-determination theory, emotional intelligence, Tuckman & Jensen's five stages, French & Raven's bases of power, and Karasek's demands-control model.
How is the exam marked?
On three official rubric criteria: depth of reflection, relevance to unit concepts/theory, and clarity of reasoning. The marker rewards quality over quantity — depth over breadth — so two theories applied deeply to a real experience beat a list of eight named shallowly. Concrete first-person experience, honest self-critique, and a 'what I learned / would do differently' sentence are where the evaluation marks live. Memorised definitions with no application score poorly.
Do the assessment weights have a hurdle, and which task matters most?
Both official assessment pages agree on the weights: EFT quiz 5%, Unit Engagement 10%, Design the Future YOU 30%, Team & Individual Presentation 20% (15% team + 5% individual), and the Final Exam 35%. No single-component hurdle is stated, but Unit Engagement carries an eligibility condition — you must attend at least 80% (10 of 12) workshops. The 30% report and the 35% exam are the two biggest stakes, and both draw on the same theory bank, so deep theory knowledge pays off twice.
How to study for the exam
Treat BUSS2000 as a 'deep, not wide' subject built around one portable theory bank. (1) Build the bank early: pick 4–6 theories you can genuinely explain — self-determination theory, emotional intelligence, Tuckman & Jensen's five stages, French & Raven's power bases, Karasek's demands-control model, and the Bloom-Fink arc — and for each write the name, author/year, one-line definition, and a personal example you could apply. (2) Keep a reflection log all semester: after each workshop and especially your team meetings, jot one 'describe → analyse → apply → evaluate' note; these become your exam essays and your Design the Future YOU evidence. (3) Rehearse the answer ritual until it is automatic: open by naming a theory + author, describe a concrete moment, analyse it through the theory, apply a second theory to your action, evaluate honestly, and close with a first-person insight — never labelling 'Bloom/Fink'. (4) Practise both exam slots: a team-experience essay (Q1) and a non-uni experience essay (Q2) so you do not repeat yourself. (5) Compress the bank onto one single-sided A4 handwritten sheet and time yourself writing 2 pages by hand, since the exam is closed-book and handwritten. (6) Use the same theory bank to de-risk the 30% report and 20% presentation — they reward the same apply-with-depth move, so every hour on the bank pays three times.
