Case Analysis on Chick Fil A

Critical Thinking Rubric

MGMT 495 Fall 2020

Case Study: Chick-Fil-A

Date: _______________

Rater: ____________________________ Course: __________________ Student: ________________

TRAIT Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does not meet Expectations Score

Introduction/Overview Thorough summary of case study

highlighting significant factors of

application research and SWOT

analysis

Introductory summary

highlighting minor factors of

application research and/or

SWOT analysis

Poor or no summary submitted

Identifies and

Summarizes Problem(s)

at Issue (Need Dedicated

Problem Statement)

Identifies not only the basics of

the issue, but recognizes nuances

of the issue

Identifies the main problem and

subsidiary, embedded, or implicit

aspects of the problem

Does not identify and summarize

the problem, is confused, or

identifies a different or

inappropriate problem

Use of SWOT Analysis as

Evidence of Critical

Thinking

Excellent detail in SWOT

analysis. Writing is characterized

by clarity of argument, depth of

original insight, and compelling

arguments related to strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and

threats. Should include unusual

insights. Arguments are well

supported using references.

Some critical thinking is evident,

but SWOT tends to address

peripheral issues. Technically

concise but could be improved

with more creative thought.

Poorly developed SWOT.

Analysis does not address

necessary components. More

analysis and creative thought

needed.

Global perspective and

position

Understands multifunctional

global issues. Argues pro and con

Effectively. Demonstrates value

of information.

Presents a narrow/limited

perspective of

international/global issues Briefly

cites data/information

Recognizes basic content

Misconstrues issues

Show little or no grasp of

international/global issues

Quality of evidence

Observes cause and effect and

addresses existing or potential

consequences. Clearly

distinguishes between fact,

opinion, and acknowledges value

judgments

Examines the evidence and

source of evidence, questions its

accuracy, precision, relevance,

and completeness

Merely repeats information

provided, taking it as truth or

denies evidence without adequate

justification

Alternatives &

Recommended Course of

Action (Alternatives and

Recommendations should

be two different sections)

Recommendations are directly

responsive to problems and

provide effective, efficient,

feasible recommendations.

Responsibilities for actions are

included.

Recommendations are adequate

but need attention regarding who

will implement them, how they

will be implemented, and what

needs to get done.

Recommendations suggest simple

solutions (such as outsourcing or

hiring consultants) and are vague,

unrealistic, expensive, too

complex, or not related to

problems.

Conclusions,

implications, and

consequences

Objectively reflects upon own

assertions

Identifies and discusses

conclusions, implications, and

consequences

Fails to identify conclusions,

implications, and consequences

of the issue

Grammar No grammatical errors exist Some grammatical errors exist but

generally do not impede meaning

Numerous grammatical errors exist

and impede meaning

Mechanics Report has no punctuation,

spelling, or capitalization errors.

Report has some punctuation,

spelling, or capitalization errors.

Report has numerous punctuations,

spelling, or capitalization errors.

Sentences and Style Sentences contain no errors and

are diverse and sophisticated. Style

is concise and professional. The

report has clearly been edited and

proofread numerous times.

Sentences contain some errors but

do not impede meaning. Style is

generally concise and professional,

but some additional editing is

warranted

Sentences contain numerous errors

and impede meaning. Style is not

concise or professional.