Assignment 3: Forced Ranking and Technology

Points: 200 Assignment 3: Forced Ranking and Technology

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 60% F

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A 1. Provide a title slide (as indicated in the format requirements below).

Weight: 5%

Did not submit or incompletely provided a title slide (as indicated in the format requirements below).

Partially provided a title slide (as indicated in the format requirements below).

Satisfactorily provided a title slide (as indicated in the format requirements below).

Thoroughly provided a title slide (as indicated in the format requirements below).

2. Develop a forced ranking performance evaluation system to improve the overall performance of the selected organization. Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely developed a forced ranking performance evaluation system to improve the overall performance of the selected organization.

Partially developed a forced ranking performance evaluation system to improve the overall performance of the selected organization.

Satisfactorily developed a forced ranking performance evaluation system to improve the overall performance of the selected organization.

Thoroughly developed a forced ranking performance evaluation system to improve the overall performance of the selected organization.

3. Prioritize the pros and cons with the greatest impact on the effectiveness of the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Provide a rationale for your response.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely prioritized the pros and cons with the greatest impact on the effectiveness of the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your response.

Partially prioritized the pros and cons with the greatest impact on the effectiveness of the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Partially provided a rationale for your response.

Satisfactorily prioritized the pros and cons with the greatest impact on the effectiveness of the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your response.

Thoroughly prioritized the pros and cons with the greatest impact on the effectiveness of the forced ranking performance evaluation system. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your response.

4. Suggest three (3) key implementation steps for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

Weight: 15%

Did not submit or incompletely suggested three (3) key implementation steps for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

Partially suggested three (3) key implementation steps for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

Satisfactorily suggested three (3) key implementation steps for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

Thoroughly suggested three (3) key implementation steps for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

5. Propose three (3) ways in which the selected organization could use technology as an enabler for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

Weight:15%

Did not submit or incompletely proposed three (3) ways in which the selected organization could use technology as an enabler for the forced ranking performance evaluation system.

Partially proposed three (3) ways in which the selected organization could use technology as an enabler for the forced ranking performance

Satisfactorily proposed three (3) ways in which the selected organization could use technology as an enabler for the forced ranking performance

Thoroughly proposed three (3) ways in which the selected organization could use technology as an enabler for the forced ranking performance

evaluation system.

evaluation system.

evaluation system.

6. Provide a summary slide which addresses key points of your paper.

Weight: 5%

Did not submit or incompletely provided a summary slide which addresses key points of your paper.

Partially provided a summary slide which addresses key points of your paper.

Satisfactorily provided a summary slide which addresses key points of your paper.

Thoroughly provided a summary slide which addresses key points of your paper.

7. Narrate each slide, using a microphone, and indicate what you would say if you were actually presenting in front of an audience.

Weight: 5%

Did not submt or incompletely narrated each slide, using a microphone, and did not submit or incompletely indicated what you would say if you were actually presenting in front of an audience.

Partially narrated each slide, using a microphone, and partially indicated what you would say if you were actually presenting in front of an audience.

Satisfactorily narrated each slide, using a microphone, and satisfactorily indicated what you would say if you were actually presenting in front of an audience.

Thoroughly narrated each slide, using a microphone, and thoroughly indicated what you would say if you were actually presenting in front of an audience.

8. 4 references

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

9. Writing Mechanics, Grammar, and Formatting

Weight: 5%

Serious and persistent errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

Error free or almost error free grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

10. Appropriate use of APA in-text citations and reference

Weight: 5%

Lack of in-text citations and / or lack of reference section.

In-text citations and references are provided, but they are only partially formatted correctly in APA style.

Most in-text citations and references are provided, and they are generally formatted correctly in APA style.

In-text citations and references are error free or almost error free and consistently formatted correctly in APA style.

11. Information Literacy / Integration of Sources

Weight: 5%

Serious errors in the integration of sources, such as intentional or accidental plagiarism, or failure to use in- text citations.

Sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

Sources are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

Sources are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

12. Clarity and Coherence of Writing

Weight: 5%

Information is confusing to the reader and fails to include reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is partially clear with minimal reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is mostly clear and generally supported with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is provided in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.