|
|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
87.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|
10.0 % Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)
|
Description of a contemporary organization responding to change is not provided.
|
A partial description of the organization is presented; major relevant details are missing. A description of the change to which the organization is responding is cursory and incomplete. The organization and change issue are not contemporary or current.
|
A cursory description of a contemporary organization is presented; most major details are included. A general description of the change to which the organization is responding is presented, but contains some inaccuracies or lacks some relevant details; the change to which the organization is responding is not a current event.
|
A description of a contemporary organization is presented; all major details are included. A description of the change to which the organization is responding is current and accurately represented.
|
A detailed description of a contemporary organization is presented; all relevant details are included and description provides insight into the organization. The description of the current change to which the organization is responding is well developed and contains relevant detail.
|
|
|
10.0 % Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)
|
The effects of change on the organization and the response of the organization to change are not discussed.
|
An incomplete discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization is not discussed.
|
A general discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization to the change is presented, but it does not include a clear evaluation of the strategies of the organization. The discussion lacks relevant details, facts, and support.
|
A discussion on the effects of change on the organization and its response to the change is presented. The discussion is supported by relevant and documented facts.
|
A well-rounded discussion on the effects of change on the organization and its response to the change is presented. The discussion is detailed and strongly supported by documented facts.
|
|
|
10.0 % Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)
|
The effect of change on the stakeholders is not addressed.
|
The effect of change on stakeholders is briefly considered, but no evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is not presented. No suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance.
|
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed, but little evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is generally presented, but it is lacking in detail. Cursory suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance, but these strategies are incomplete and lack support for validity.
|
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented. Suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. Evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Some evidence is provided to support statements, and common strategies are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance.
|
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed in detail. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented with accurate and relevant examples. Well-developed recommendations are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. Strong evidence or rationale is provided for claims made, and strategies relevant to the organization and stakeholders are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance.
|
|
|
10.0 % Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration
|
The effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are not evaluated.
|
General effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are discussed, but the specific effects for the departments within the organization are not included.
|
A superficial evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation lacks detail, facts, support, or rationale.
|
An evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation is supported with some detail, facts, support, or rationale.
|
A detailed evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented and provides insight into the situation. The evaluation is supported with strong detail, facts, support, and rationale.
|
|
|
15.0 % Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders
|
Evaluation response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are not referenced.
|
A clear evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are referenced, but not formally addressed. Overall, the involvement of leadership in response to change is unclear.
|
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to understanding the actual involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were responsive to change, but significant information or details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.
|
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were responsive to change, but significant information or details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.
|
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented with sufficient detail and supporting information vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are clearly addressed and provide insight into the outcomes the organization experienced in responding to change. Overall, leadership response to change is clear and contains significant information or details that describe the extent of leadership involvement and the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.
|
|
|
15.0 % Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)
|
No recommendations are made.
|
Recommendations to address change dynamics or for additional strategies are incomplete. Recommendations do not contain substantial rationale or support and do not seem relevant to the organization or circumstances.
|
General recommendations to address change dynamics are presented. Additional strategies are offered, but lack detail, rationale, or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would support a better change option in response to change.
|
Recommendations to address change dynamics are presented. Additional strategies are offered, with appropriate rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would support a better change option in response to change.
|
Well-supported recommendations to address change dynamics are clearly presented. Additional strategies are offered, with strong rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would indeed support a better change option in response to change.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose
|
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.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction
|
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.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
|
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
|
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.
|
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|
5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
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.
|
|
|
5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
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.
|
|
|
100 %
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
