LP762-L2 WEEK 7

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