BUS3041 WK2 Project
BUS3041 Week 2 Project Rubric Course: BUS3041-Managerial Communications SU02
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Summarized the key
focal points of the code
of ethics.
/ 10Did not identify key focal
points of the code of
ethics.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified key focal points
of the code of ethics.
Lacked credible research
support.
Described key focal points
of the code of ethics.
Weakly supported with
research.
Summarized key focal
points of the code of
ethics.
Sufficiently supported
with research.
Summary of key focal
points of the code of
ethics was compelling and
showed well-developed
logical progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Analyzed whether the
firm urges all its employs
to uphold the code.
/ 10Did not identify whether
the firm urges all its
employs to uphold the
code.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified whether the
firm urges all its employs
to uphold the code.
Lacked credible research
support.
Described whether the
firm urges all its employs
to uphold the code.
Weakly supported with
research.
Analyzed whether the firm
urges all its employs to
uphold the code.
Sufficiently supported
with research.
Analysis of whether the
firm urges all its employs
to uphold the code was
compelling and showed
well-developed logical
progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Assessed how the code
reflects the firm’s values
and culture.
/ 10Did not identify the firm’s
values and culture.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified the firm’s values
and culture.
Lacked credible research
support.
Described the firm’s
values and culture.
Weakly supported with
research.
Assessed how the code
reflects the firm’s values
and culture.
Sufficiently supported
with research.
9-10 Points
Assessment of how the
code reflects the firm’s
values and culture was
compelling and actionable
with well-developed
logical progression.
Well supported by
research.
Total / 50
Overall Score
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Recommended at least
three improvements for
the code of ethics.
/ 10Did not identify
improvements for the
code of ethics.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified improvements
for the code of ethics.
Lacked credible research
support.
Described improvements
for the code of ethics.
Weakly supported with
research
Recommended at least
three improvements for
the code of ethics.
Sufficiently supported
with research.
Recommendation of at
least three improvements
for the code of ethics was
compelling and actionable
with well-developed
logical progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Wrote in a clear, concise,
and organized manner;
demonstrated ethical
scholarship in accurate
representation and
attribution of sources
(i.e., APA); and displayed
accurate spelling,
grammar, and
punctuation.
Communication: Use of
tone, word choice,
audien
/ 10Submission contains no
discernible overall intent
in author’s selection of
ideas.
Errors in basic writing
conventions are
sufficiently numerous to
prevent reader
comprehension.
No attempt at
Academic/APA formatting
in presentation
Submission contains
random presentation of
ideas, which prevents
understanding the
majority of author’s overall
intent.
Errors in basic writing
conventions are
sufficiently numerous to
prevent reader
comprehension of majority
of the work.
Academic/APA format is
attempted, but errors are
significant.
Ideas are presented in a
way that forces the reader
to make repeated
inferences in order to
identify and follow the
author’s overall intent.
Errors in basic writing
conventions interfere
with, but do not prevent,
reader comprehension.
Academic/APA format is
attempted but errors are
distracting.
The reader can follow the
author’s overall intent as
stated.
The reader noticed a few
errors in basic writing
conventions but these few
errors do not interfere
with reader
comprehension.
Using Academic/APA
format, accurately. Errors
are noticeable but minor.
The writer’s overall
argument and language
are clear and tightly
focused, leaving the
reader with no room for
confusion about author’s
intent.
Text is basically error free,
so that a reader would
have to purposely search
to find any errors that may
be present.
Using Academic/APA
format proficiently. Text is
basically error free.
No Submission 0 points minimum
Emerging (F through D range) 1 point minimum
Satisfactory (C range) 35 points minimum
Proficient (B range) 40 points minimum
Exemplary (A range) 45 points minimum