LP762-L2 WEEK 7

Detailed Descriptions of Papers and Grading Rubrics:

Paper #1: Leadership Consultation Paper: “John Smith and Lillyvanian Systems” (minimum requirement--13 pages long):

This paper will demonstrate your understanding and synthesis of materials covered from the start of the semester to the due date of the paper in readings, class discussions, and other exercises. For this assignment, you will be asked to take the role of external leadership consultant to a leader (or leaders) in an organization described in a case (“John Smith and Lillyvanian Systems”), written by Dr. Jacobs for the purposes of this assignment, posted on the course Canvas page. You will be expected to be able to demonstrate understanding of, and also to be able to show, how the theories covered in class can be applied in a practical and useful manner, regarding leadership and followership issues evident in the case materials. The goal of the assignment is to demonstrate your understanding of the materials covered thus far in the course so please do not spend the entire paper summarizing the details from the case—focus on synthesizing and applying concepts from the course to the details of the case instead.

Appropriate and useful references to key concepts covered in the readings, class discussions, and additional exercises will be expected.

In this paper, you are expected to make appropriate references from at least 12 different sources from the course readings (either direct quotes, or paraphrase of concepts) appropriately referenced in proper APA style. Please do not reference readings from other courses or sources—there are more than enough sources in the LP 762 readings to draw from and use of external sources will result in a loss of points. Referencing the Case does not count as one of the references and at least 10 references should be from the peer-reviewed journal articles, NOT just the books (12 is the minimum number of references but you are allowed to use more). A cover page and reference page are expected but are not considered part of the 13 pages (nor are any exhibits or tables you may choose to use in the paper). One to three lines on a page is not considered a page. Please make sure the pages are numbered and that your name and a running header (or footer) are on each page. The paper should be double-spaced (size 12 font) and you are expected to check for spelling errors, incorrect word usage, and other typographical errors prior to handing in this paper as errors of this nature will result in a loss of points. Not meeting page requirements will also result in a loss of points. Proper current APA style is required and all quotes must be sourced correctly. An abstract is NOT needed (if you choose to add one, it does not count as part of the page count). Note: You may go OVER the 13 page limit if you feel the need to do so, but please do not hand in any more than a 20-page long paper (maximum).

Please treat this assignment as if you were handing it in to a client with whom you were consulting and do not want to lose the client’s case/business due to preventable errors that raise questions about your abilities and, also, please write the paper in the third-person (similar to cases of leaders in the readings). You are to write the case in the third person, NOT the first person, and you are to write it as if this was an actual document that you are writing for John Smith’s consultant, NOT for John Smith directly. Also, please do not make the mistake that

some have done in the past of not ever actually making specific recommendations to the client (e.g., simply advising “further data gathering” as your key recommendation will not be a sign that you understood the assignment). As the semester gets underway if you have additional questions about the paper you are welcome to contact Dr. Jacobs directly to discuss your ideas.

This paper is to be electronically “handed in” via email to Dr. Jacobs no later than 6:00 pm (EST) on the due date (listed in the assignments table) at [email protected] . This paper is worth 35 course points (out of 100 total course points) and papers handed in late (depending on the circumstances) will lose points up to and including: loss of a full grade (that is, an “A” to a “B”), loss of more than a full grade, receiving a grade of “no credit” for the assignment (meaning a 0 out of a potential 35 points). Papers not meeting the minimum required length will lose points up to as much as a “No Credit” (0/35 course points) which would result in a failing grade for the course. Additional information about expectations for Paper #1 are described in detail in the rubric below. Please contact Dr. Jacobs well in advance with any questions about this assignment.

Assessment Criteria/Grading Rubric LP 762 Paper #1 Student Name ____________________________ Grade _________/100 (worth 35 course points)

Topic Points Comments Introduction

· Was the question asked by the consultant stated clearly in the paper, in the context of the “John Smith and Lillyvanian Systems” case? · Is the brief summary (2-3 pages at most) of John Smith and the company relevant to leadership and followership categories of information (e.g., interpersonal dynamics, psychological theories, gender issues) covered during the course, with appropriate brief references to course materials? · Is the introduction written in the third person as required by the consultant? · Is there a proper segue from the introduction into the next section of the paper?

___/15

Leadership Development · Was John Smith’s personal and professional development described accurately in terms of his going from student to entry level worker to higher level executive, in the context of theories and interventions described in the course? · Were different interventions/aspects of John Smith’s leadership at different levels correctly identified and described (e.g., ineffective, effective, with measurable and objective examples) rather than subjectively or affectively labeled (e.g., “bad” or “good” based on personal reaction without measurable, objective examples)? · Were growth moments or practices or “lessons learned” by John Smith identified and explained in the context of course readings? · Were relevant psychological and developmental issues included in the case discussed in the context of types of leadership (e.g., executive, transformative, transactional, authentic, reactive, proactive)?

___/15

Attention to Followership Issues · Were followership examples or descriptors provided in the case identified and discussed in the paper, in the context of course readings? · Were followership issues correctly separated from leadership issues? · Were objective and measurable comments made about how John Smith interacted with followers supported by specific examples from the case? · Were suggestions for ways to improve followership interactions by John Smith (or other key actors in the case) mentioned, in the context of theories or interventions discussed in course readings? · Were relevant psychological and developmental issues discussed?

___/15

Theory (Leadership, Followership, Psychological) · Were theories addressing key issues in leadership and followership interactions covered in the course correctly described and appropriately referenced? · Were references to theories described in contextual manner that showed they organically fit (or were correctly utilized) to the case material being discussed (as opposed to being just “dropped in” or labeled but without context or appropriate explanation)?

___/20

Conclusions and Recommendations · Were conclusions and recommendations relevant to the case at hand and supported by specific examples from the case material? · Did the recommendations have specific “real world” application for John Smith’s consultant? · Do the recommendations specifically answer the question asked by the consultant, as stated in the case and the case description? · Were there indications of creative insight and an ability to synthesize the concepts from course material to support the summary and recommendations?

___/20

Quality of written work · Did the paper have proper attention to detail and appropriate editing to remove unnecessary errors (e.g., grammatical mistakes, incorrect spelling, confusion with plural S and possessive S, punctuation errors, incorrect use of e.g./i.e.)? · Did the student demonstrate correct knowledge of APA style and writing format (e.g., for references and citations, running head, cover page, page format, required length)?

___/15