| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| LDR-615 |
LDR-615-O500 |
Change Initiative: Creating Vision |
200.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) |
Satisfactory (79.00%) |
Good (87.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
70.0% |
| Presentation of Organization (Mission, Stakeholders, Driving Forces in the Industry or Field, Viability of Organization, etc.) |
|
| 10.0% |
No organizational description is presented. |
An incomplete description of the organization is presented; significant details regarding the mission and stakeholders have been omitted. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is missing or incomplete. |
A general description of the organization is provided; some details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization, and its stakeholders are missing. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is incomplete or lacks of support. |
A description of the organization is provided, including most major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and its stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces provides insight into organizational viability, but evaluation lacks sufficient support and some minor details are missing. |
A description of the organization is provided, including all major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and insight into the various organizational stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces contains strong support and provides clear insight into organizational viability. |
| Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department |
| 1
|
|
| 5.0% |
Analysis of specific driving force and the effect of this force on the organization or department is not presented. |
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it is incomplete. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are not discussed. |
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it lacks details and supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are generally discussed. |
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, including major details and general supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are discussed. |
Analysis of specific driving force is logically presented, including all relevant details and strong supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are clearly discussed. Analysis provides unique insight into the effects of the driving force on the viability of the organization or department. |
| Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change |
15.0%
No steps are proposed to respond to change. |
A general recommendation for responding to change is referenced, but it lacks specific steps. No prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, or prediction is vague and lacks supportive evidence. |
Some steps are proposed responding to change, but they lack a logical sequence and major detail. A general prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, but the prediction lacks major detail and evidence to support claims. |
Steps are proposed for responding to change through logical sequence. A prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with general evidence to support claims. |
Detailed steps are proposed for responding to change through a clear and logical sequence. A well-developed prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with with strong evidence to support claims. |
| Development of Vision for Change |
| 20.0% |
No vision is presented. |
A vision is presented, but it lacks rationale. Vision does not correlate with the mission of the organization, or the mission is not stated. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are incomplete or missing. |
A vision is presented with some supporting rationale. Vision loosely correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are generally presented. |
A vision is presented with rationale. Vision correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vison to stakeholders are presented. Overall, vision contains elements conducive to supporting a change initiative. |
A detailed vision is presented with strong supporting rationale. Vision correlates directly with the mission of the organization. Detailed steps for presenting the vision to all internal stakeholders are presented. Presentation of vision facilitates stakeholder involvement. Overall, vision is strongly conducive to supporting a change initiative. |
| Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision |
10.0%
No stakeholder evaluation is presented. |
A partial stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented, but it is incomplete. |
A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is generally presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are generally discussed; no clear plan for responding to these considerations is proposed. |
A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are discussed; a general plan for responding to these considerations is proposed. |
A detailed evaluation of stakeholder response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are clearly identified and discussed in detail; a clear and well-supported plan for responding to these considerations is proposed. |
| Organization and Effectiveness |
20.0%
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
7.0% |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
8.0% |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, |
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
Format 10.0%
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
5.0%
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style |
5.0%
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
